[PF][3.5] Pet Peeve Sort Of

[Karoht]

So someone will make a thread with the tag of [PF] in the title.
And the topic might be something about how to optimize a class. They'll specify books, and all that jazz, and at no point state 3.5 is allowed. Typically they'll specify that it is not allowed.

Sooner or later, usually within 5 replies, someone will say something to the effect of the following:

"If 3.5 stuff is allowed, check out this feat..."
"As your DM if he'll allow 3.5 stuff, look at this class instead..."
"The Pathfinder version of this feat isn't as good as the 3.5 version, see if your DM will let you use the 3.5 one."
"Tome of Battle/Book of Nine Swords..."

The same seems to happen with 3rd party content.

Can anyone explain why this is?

[Segev]

Simple.

The moment you go from TO to an actual game, the human factor of the DM enters the picture prominently. Unless it's made explicitly clear that the DM will not, under any circumstances, allow 3.5 stuff, and won't even consider it, it's often worthwhile to mention "and check with your DM about this specific 3.5 thing," because 3.5 is so completely compatible with PF on almost all levels that, where 3.5 did something "better" than PF (or did it at all when PF hasn't), it is not unreasonable to suggest asking the DM if he'll house-rule the PF thing to be the 3.5 version, or allow a 3.5 thing into PF as a house rule.

It's not saying, "The DM has to allow this!" It's simply providing options to the querant.

In 3.5, 3.0 feats et al are occasionally still suggested, usually with the caveat of "it's 3.0, but if your DM will allow/adapt it..."

In short, when people ask for advice, there is an implicit assumption that, for a given real game, house rulings will occur. Using 3.5/3.0/PF as sources for house rule inspiration is quite reasonable, even when working with nominally the wrong system out of the three.

[Karoht]

Simple.

The moment you go from TO to an actual game, the human factor of the DM enters the picture prominently. Unless it's made explicitly clear that the DM will not, under any circumstances, allow 3.5 stuff, and won't even consider it, it's often worthwhile to mention "and check with your DM about this specific 3.5 thing," because 3.5 is so completely compatible with PF on almost all levels that, where 3.5 did something "better" than PF (or did it at all when PF hasn't), it is not unreasonable to suggest asking the DM if he'll house-rule the PF thing to be the 3.5 version, or allow a 3.5 thing into PF as a house rule.

It's not saying, "The DM has to allow this!" It's simply providing options to the querant.

In 3.5, 3.0 feats et al are occasionally still suggested, usually with the caveat of "it's 3.0, but if your DM will allow/adapt it..."

In short, when people ask for advice, there is an implicit assumption that, for a given real game, house rulings will occur. Using 3.5/3.0/PF as sources for house rule inspiration is quite reasonable, even when working with nominally the wrong system out of the three.
Those are fair assumptions.
But then why bother specifying PF at all then, given those assumptions?
Is it not a fair assumption that when someone says PF only, and labels their thread as such, that they primarily want Pathfinder suggestions and advice, and that 3.5 suggestions are largely irrelevant?

[Segev]

That's why it's usually 4-5 posts before the 3.5 suggestions show up, and why many of the 3.5 suggestions will carry the, "It's 3.5, but you might ask your DM about..." caveat.

Yes, it's acknowledged it's a PF game, and only PF stuff is (assumed) guaranteed to be allowed. But the nod to that is clearly marking 3.5 material as such and making sure that the poster is told to ask his DM about it.

Unless the OP makes it painfully clear that, under no circumstances will he or his DM consider 3.5 material at all, it's actually a disservice to assume that NO 3.5 material will be considered. Most DMs, in most games, allow house rules, RAI interpretations, and even 3rd party material on a case-by-case basis. 3.5 material is certainly "3rd party" to PF, and is usually as compatible.

[Amphetryon]

Those are fair assumptions.
But then why bother specifying PF at all then, given those assumptions?
Is it not a fair assumption that when someone says PF only, and labels their thread as such, that they primarily want Pathfinder suggestions and advice, and that 3.5 suggestions are largely irrelevant?

Your initial post says nothing that I can see about "PF only," merely that PF is the starting point for suggestions for build help. Nothing in your first post indicates the exclusivity that "only" implies.

[Karoht]

Your initial post says nothing that I can see about "PF only," merely that PF is the starting point for suggestions for build help. Nothing in your first post indicates the exclusivity that "only" implies.
Since I glossed over the example to keep people from bogging on semantics of the example, I'll now make an example.

Title: [PF] Sorcerer Build Help
First Post:
I'm building a Sorcerer for an upcoming campaign, set in the Pathfinder Module Reign of Winter. Anything on Pathfindersrd.com is okay except for 3rd party stuff, according to the DM. I was going to focus on Lightning primarily, what feats should I take.

Within 3-10 posts someone will post either a 3rd party option, or a 3.5 option.

It's a Pathfinder Campaign, in a Pathfinder Module (which one would go right ahead and assume is built with Pathfinder content in mind, not 3.5), and the person has specified the source of PathfinderSRD.com excluding 3rd Party Stuff.

So again, how is someone thinking that 3rd party or 3.5 suggestions are in any way relevant?

[DementedFellow]

I find it way more common that PF will be pointed at in a discussion of 3.5.

[Karoht]

I find it way more common that PF will be pointed at in a discussion of 3.5.Huh. I wonder why that is.

[Roguenewb]

The reason is simple: Pathfinder is small. It only adds 8 non-core base classes, and many of them are fairly generic. Inquisitor is the bard to the cleric's wizard, oracle is divine sorcerer, witch is a wizard variant with worse spells and better class features, summoner is essentially druid without all the spells that don't summon monsters (eidolon is essentially wild-shape where you can still be hit). Cavalier and Magus are common archetypes given an easy XXXX-in-a-can options, and Alchemist is actually somewhat different in play style to anything else out there (essentially a wizard with free blasting and self-only buffs but also a bunch of other dynamics in play), as is Gunslinger (managing a regenerating resource is fairly unique in 3.P). So those 19 base classes are functionally 8~13 (considering some core classes were already similiar). 3.5 has 11 core classes, 2 invokers (similiar to each other, but otherwise different), 3 wizard variants (Wu Jen, Archivist, Shadowcaster), 3 specialist sorcerers (Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necro, and I'm being nice to PF by grouping these three, they are quite differet), 3 rogue variants (Spellthief, Scout, Ninja), Factotum (totally unique play style), Binder, whatever the hell Truenamer is, two fighter variants (Swashbuckler, Samurai), A ranger/paladin variant (Hexblade) 2 spontaneous divine casters (Shugenja, Favored Soul) and I'm sure I'm missing stuff, and I left out psionics on purpose.

Then there is the biggest draw in all of 3.P, prestige classes. There are 78 prestige classes listed in the SRD. A lot of them are unexciting/organization variants of base classes, so its not a ton of versatility. In the first four complete series alone (arcane, divine, adventurer and warrior) there are 88. And that's a pretty trivial fraction of total prestige classes around, especially once you start including setting based material, which is only fair since a fair amount of the 78 on PFSRD are Golarion based. 78 is a very small number Less than 20 per power source, to use 4e terminology (arcane, divine, nature, skill, and combat).

The same trend also applies to spells and feats (especially with a bunch of decent feats from 3.5 being chopped up into two or more feats in pf).

Huge piles of customization and flexibility are one of the huge selling points in the 3.P D20 universe, and PF has so little content in relation (and soooooo much of it is cliche/dull, especially for long time RPGers) that people want to draw from the much, much larger pool that is 3.5.

Now, I like PF, but as a rules patch, not a source of content. To play PF well, get reaaaaal familiar with the conversion rules and use them constantly. They did a good job improving the rules, and updating early base classes to be more in line with later class design (admit it, thats essentially what they did to help paladin, rogue, fighter and so on, WotC had figured it out far better by the end).

tl;dr PF is good on rules, small on content, people are suggesting cool/unique stuff from 3.5 because there is so little of that in Paizo PF content.


Notice: I have zero experience with any of the PF 3rd party stuff

[137beth]

[PF] indicates that the base rules (core) are following PF, and that when the PF and 3.5 rules contradict each other, PF should be followed. PF is clearly advertised as being compatible with 3.5, so I expect that a DM is just as likely to allow 3.5 books as any other supplement (with the caveat that OGL supplements are more likely to be available, and many 3.5 books are not OGL). The same pattern is followed for suggesting 3.0 supplements in a 3.5 or PF game. Now, if your GM has a specific set of allowed books, you can give that in the opening post ("my GM only allows CRB, UM, APG, Ultimate Equipment, ToB, Complete Warrior, and Libris Mortis"). Otherwise, we don't know what is allowed. The tendency on the forums seems to be to suggest stuff that we know is allowed first (core, or supplements that the OP tells us are allowed), and then suggest other things that might be allowed, saying that you would need to specifically request them.


I find it way more common that PF will be pointed at in a discussion of 3.5.
It might be because PF material is more likely to be available for free, but I don't know.

[Psyren]

Can anyone explain why this is?

Basically because it doesn't hurt anything to ask (what's your DM going to do, call for the hot pincers and have your tongue removed? Have you scourged and flayed?) and both systems have gaps that the other system easily fills. If one is banned so be it - but even then, a good DM might ease a blanket ban if something fits a concept particularly well.

For example, there was the 3.5 thread where PangolinPie was asking for "a ninja who uses alchemical items, poison, and makes potions." He cobbled together a Frankenstein build using rogue, sorcerer, alchemist savant, spellwarp sniper and some other things; one of the immediate suggestions though was simply to ask if he could play a Vivisectionist from PF.

3.5 to PF is even easier - the system was designed from the ground up to enable this direction of conversion after all.

[Karoht]

The reason is simple: Pathfinder is small. It only adds 8 non-core base classes, and many of them are fairly generic....and somehow this necessitates telling people about 3.5 options when they are asking for Pathfinder options?

P1: "I want some info about Ducks."
P2: "Let me tell you about Condors."
P1: "But my report for school is about Ducks."
P2: "Ducks are birds. Condors are birds. Both are compatible in the greater discussion about birds."
P1: "But the discussion is about Ducks."
P2: "Sidenote, Condors are also better than Ducks, they have more options, more depth, more interesting features. Talk to your teacher about having your Duck report include Condors."


I get the above exchange more often than not. The suggestion to broaden the scope is nice and all, but often not relevant. If I want to buy a scooter, no one needs to suggest me buying an SUV, it doesn't change the fact that my needs and budget necessitate a scooter.

[DementedFellow]

Maybe you should specify in no uncertain terms that you are playing X system and under no circumstances will Y system come into play.

[Karoht]

Maybe you should specify in no uncertain terms that you are playing X system and under no circumstances will Y system come into play.
So I can get people asking me WHY only Ducks and no Condors and why my DM does or does not want to allow Condors and how I should talk to him about Condors?

[Psyren]

So I can get people asking me WHY only Ducks and no Condors and why my DM does or does not want to allow Condors and how I should talk to him about Condors?

You're acting like those aren't legitimate questions. :smallconfused:

Sometimes DMs ban something for totally arbitrary reasons, and are open to changing their minds when they realize it's a much easier route to realizing a concept than cobbling together disparate pieces from among the various remaining allowed sources.

[Amphetryon]

So I can get people asking me WHY only Ducks and no Condors and why my DM does or does not want to allow Condors and how I should talk to him about Condors?

Karoht, I have to ask: what, exactly, were you hoping to get as a response to this thread? From where I sit, any attempt at a rational explanation is one you simply dismiss out of hand. Was it your hope that responses would uniformly be "boy, that really bugs me, too" without any attempt at providing a counterpoint?

[Karoht]

Karoht, I have to ask: what, exactly, were you hoping to get as a response to this thread? From where I sit, any attempt at a rational explanation is one you simply dismiss out of hand. Was it your hope that responses would uniformly be "boy, that really bugs me, too" without any attempt at providing a counterpoint?
Not at all. I'm curious why people feel an need to have an off topic irrelevant discussion rather than discussing the relevant thread topic, sometimes followed by defending the off topic irrelevent discussion. The revelation that many people see the two as the same system and therefore do not distinguish the two separately (often in spite of clear labels) is a perfectly constructive counterpoint, the exact kind I was seeking. My Duck VS Condor example is still salient however.

To be completely honest, I was beginning to come to the conclusion that the people who did this were more or less conducting a form of trolling. Seeking to spark an arguement about the superiority of 3.5. Now while that is going a bit far and is no longer my opinion. Still, there were days where that was the impression I got from some people, and that was precicely how pushy some people behaved about the subject.

I'm also curious as to how far one has to caveat the thread topic to avoid having 3.5 pop up in a non 3.5 thread, and how to do so without scaring people out of the discussion. See below for more details.



You're acting like those aren't legitimate questions. :smallconfused:
Sometimes DMs ban something for totally arbitrary reasons, and are open to changing their minds when they realize it's a much easier route to realizing a concept than cobbling together disparate pieces from among the various remaining allowed sources.Legitimate and relevant are two different things. It's also a legitimate request for a thread to remain on the relevant thread topic right?
Again, it's the used car salesman trying to sell me an SUV when all I'm after is a scooter. Rather than help me find the best scooter for my money, you are choosing to continue to push the SUV, when there is no possible way I will be affording or operating the SUV, wasting both our time and energy. Sure, the questions as to why I can't operate an SUV or why I can't afford one are both legitimate questions, maybe the car salesman has some funky payment system that I might be able to use, or maybe the SUV's are just so darned easy to drive nowadays. But they aren't necessarily relevant, and in some cases the questions can even be considered accusatory and rude.
Relevant help is better than no help.

As Tarquin put it recently in OotS, "Power I can't access is no power at all."


=======
So what in your mind is a good caveat then to throw at the top of a thread, without being too blunt about it? One that avoids the "talk to your DM about letting you use X" comments, along with the "but why isn't your DM allowing you to use X" discussion. Something that says "I want Pathfinder suggestions about a Pathfinder problem" and people will actually interpret that as "this guy wants Pathfinder help and NOT a discussion about 3.5"
And without being too rude or pushy about it?

[Psyren]

To be completely honest, I was beginning to come to the conclusion that the people who did this were more or less conducting a form of trolling. Seeking to spark an arguement about the superiority of 3.5. Now while that is going a bit far and is no longer my opinion. Still, there were days where that was the impression I got from some people, and that was precicely how pushy some people behaved about the subject.

That's a bit... I'll be as charitable as I can and say "ridiculous." Again, PF was designed to be compatible with 3.5 options, so suggesting 3.5 options to achieve {concept} is part of the system's intent. People doing what the game itself intends them to do are trying to help you, not troll you.



Legitimate and relevant are two different things. It's also a legitimate request for a thread to remain on the relevant thread topic right?

Sure, but seeing it as a personal insult when people want to demonstrate their knowledge in a way that may prove helpful to you is unfair at best and downright anal at worst.

Do you have an example of someone being pushy enough in one of your threads to approximate a used-car salesman?

[Karoht]

That's a bit... I'll be as charitable as I can and say "ridiculous." Again, PF was designed to be compatible with 3.5 options, so suggesting 3.5 options to achieve {concept} is part of the system's intent. People doing what the game itself intends them to do are trying to help you, not troll you.
Seeing it as a personal insult when people want to demonstrate their knowledge in a way that may prove helpful to you is unfair at best and downright anal at worst.
1-You seem to have missed the part where I said that is no longer my opinion. Just pointing that out.
2-Explain or provide an example as to how providing an irrelevant response to a question is 'demonstrating knowledge in a way that may prove helpful.'
If I ask you for direction on how to get to Baker Street, and you provide me directions to a McDonalds on Boardwalk Avenue, how is that helpful? Sure, it demonstrates your knowledge of the layout of a town, but it isn't a helpful response.
3-When you ask a question, you want helpful and relevant responses right? When you have a bunch of people pushing unhelpful and irrelevant responses on you, then turning accusatory and wondering why the irrelevant info isn't helping, when they could instead read the sign that says X and not Y, it's very irritating. We could just skip the whole Used Car Salesman routine with people just reading the thread title and first post.
4-If I were to go into the 3.5 threads and start discussing 4th edition, I'm pretty sure someone would be chastizing me or reporting me for off topic.
5-Why 3.5 isn't being used isn't always someone's business. Maybe I don't like 3.5 for reasons I don't feel like writing 2 paragraphs to summarize every time someone asks. Maybe I've stated my reasonings before on several occasions. Maybe my DM invents reasons on the spot and I don't feel like investing the time or energy to convince him otherwise. Maybe the group collectively decided to not allow 3.5 content for reasons they collectively agreed on. Who cares, I shouldn't have to defend it every thread I start, and neither should anyone else.



Do you have an example of someone being pushy enough in one of your threads to approximate a used-car salesman?The first time I posted up a thread for my Sage Arcane False Priest Sorcerer with Paragon Surge. I said at the top of the page "To my knowlege 3.5 is not being allowed." 4 posts in, I had a post with about a dozen 3.5 suggestions. Every post after that was a 3.5 suggestion, or an arguement about a previous 3.5 suggestion. After about post 10 I asked if anyone had any Pathfinder suggestions and explained again that 3.5 wasn't being permitted, the response I got was "Find out from your DM why isn't 3.5 being allowed." After about a week of this, I unsubscribed from the thread, and started the thread again about 3 weeks later with a more clear caveat. Admittedly, that is the only one that goes as far as the pushy used car salesman example that has happened to me personally. I've seen lesser versions of this happen to other people's threads (more recently in a Oracle/CODzilla thread)

[Segev]

Honestly, if you're so strongly uninterested in anything non-PF that you don't want even suggestions to ask your DM about something, you're probably going to need to put, in bold text, "I am interested only in PF material; no matter how helpful 3.5 material might be, for purposes of this thread it is not useful, so please restrict your advice only to PF material!"

In the OP, obviously; that wouldn't fit in the subject. The subject definitely should have "[PF]" in it, possibly including a "[No 3.5]" if there's room.

And, finally, when somebody inevitably asks about it or brings it up, politely but firmly remind everybody in the thread that you can't use non-PF stuff and ask that, if they really want to discuss 3.5 material, they take it to another thread.

[soveliss24]

Again, PF was designed to be compatible with 3.5 options, so suggesting 3.5 options to achieve {concept} is part of the system's intent. People doing what the game itself intends them to do are trying to help you, not troll you.



2-Explain or provide an example as to how providing an irrelevant response to a question is 'demonstrating knowledge in a way that may prove helpful.'
If I ask you for direction on how to get to Baker Street, and you provide me directions to a McDonalds on Boardwalk Avenue, how is that helpful? Sure, it demonstrates your knowledge of the layout of a town, but it isn't a helpful response.

I'm not sure this is an adequate analogy for what Psyren was trying to say. He pointed out that PF was designed to be compatible with 3.5. I'd say it's more like "I ask you for directions to a McDonalds on Baker Street, and you provide me with directions to a McDonalds on Boardwalk, making sure to point out to me that it's not the restaurant I specifically asked for, but it's in the same chain and is closer."

Just my 2 coppers.

[Psyren]

1-You seem to have missed the part where I said that is no longer my opinion. Just pointing that out.
2-Explain or provide an example as to how providing an irrelevant response to a question is 'demonstrating knowledge in a way that may prove helpful.'
If I ask you for direction on how to get to Baker Street, and you provide me directions to a McDonalds on Boardwalk Avenue, how is that helpful? Sure, it demonstrates your knowledge of the layout of a town, but it isn't a helpful response.
3-When you ask a question, you want helpful and relevant responses right? When you have a bunch of people pushing unhelpful and irrelevant responses on you, then turning accusatory and wondering why the irrelevant info isn't helping, when they could instead read the sign that says X and not Y, it's very irritating. We could just skip the whole Used Car Salesman routine with people just reading the thread title and first post.
4-If I were to go into the 3.5 threads and start discussing 4th edition, I'm pretty sure someone would be chastizing me or reporting me for off topic.
5-Why 3.5 isn't being used isn't always someone's business. Maybe I don't like 3.5 for reasons I don't feel like writing 2 paragraphs to summarize every time someone asks. Maybe I've stated my reasonings before on several occasions. Maybe my DM invents reasons on the spot and I don't feel like investing the time or energy to convince him otherwise. Maybe the group collectively decided to not allow 3.5 content for reasons they collectively agreed on. Who cares, I shouldn't have to defend it every thread I start, and neither should anyone else.

1) I never said it was your opinion; I was arguing against the concept in general.

2) It can prove helpful if, as I said a couple of times upthread, you are in fact able to convince your DM to allow it. Which is possible if (a) there is no strong reason for the material to be disallowed, and (b) the disallowed material allows you to realize a concept more easily or cleanly than cobbling together pieces and fragments from allowed sources.

3) It's only unhelpful if you can't ever, under any circumstances, convince your DM to make it helpful. Since DMs are presumably people and not machines, 100% intractability is not a situation people consider to be reasonable.

4) 4e is incompatible with 3.5 and PF, so that doesn't really have any bearing on your situation. Compatibility with 3.5 was a design goal of PF. The only thing keeping a 3.5 suggestion out is the DM's desire, which can be changed.

5) This one I sympathize with; all I can say here is to be as clear as possible that 3.5 material isn't allowed. Speaking of which:


The first time I posted up a thread for my Sage Arcane False Priest Sorcerer with Paragon Surge. I said at the top of the page "To my knowlege 3.5 is not being allowed."

"To my knowledge" is a very softball condition; it implies not only that your DM hasn't set an ironclad ban, it implies that you may even be wrong about what is allowed and what isn't. So perhaps you can see how that might not actually dissuade anyone from making 3.5 suggestions, and indeed it may encourage them to try if they think something nails your concept well enough to make you determine for sure whether it's allowed or not.

[Karoht]

1) I never said it was your opinion; I was arguing against the concept in general.Understood.


2) It can prove helpful if, as I said a couple of times upthread, you are in fact able to convince your DM to allow it. Which is possible if (a) there is no strong reason for the material to be disallowed, and (b) the disallowed material allows you to realize a concept more easily or cleanly than cobbling together pieces and fragments from allowed sources.
3) It's only unhelpful if you can't ever, under any circumstances, convince your DM to make it helpful. Since DMs are presumably people and not machines, 100% intractability is not a situation people consider to be reasonable.What this basically says is, if someone reads that there is a chance that my DM might cave, suddenly that makes it relevant, even if specified otherwise. That isn't exactly encouraging here. :smalltongue:



5) This one I sympathize with; all I can say here is to be as clear as possible that 3.5 material isn't allowed. Speaking of which:
"To my knowledge" is a very softball condition; it implies not only that your DM hasn't set an ironclad ban, it implies that you may even be wrong about what is allowed and what isn't. So perhaps you can see how that might not actually dissuade anyone from making 3.5 suggestions, and indeed it may encourage them to try if they think something nails your concept well enough to make you determine for sure whether it's allowed or not.Which brings me back to a question I asked.
What caveat should I use that isn't rude or forceful, but still gets the point across?


@Segev
Not only do I think I would still get people prying as to why no 3.5, and dropping suggestions, but those who don't would probably ask why such a forceful caveat. Which would then likely boil back down to this discussion.
Though I think that including "if you want to provide 3.5 suggestions do it in another thread" isn't too forceful or unclear.

[Psyren]

What this basically says is, if someone reads that there is a chance that my DM might cave, suddenly that makes it relevant, even if specified otherwise. That isn't exactly encouraging here. :smalltongue:

If you know for sure that your DM won't cave, then you need to make that clear. Certainly you have to be clearer about it than in the example you gave :smalltongue:



Which brings me back to a question I asked.
What caveat should I use that isn't rude or forceful, but still gets the point across?

PF ONLY. Thanks! would work for me, but honestly, some people skim the OP and a couple might get through regardless. You can always spam the report button if you think they're really going after you or something.

[Roguenewb]

...and somehow this necessitates telling people about 3.5 options when they are asking for Pathfinder options?

P1: "I want some info about Ducks."
P2: "Let me tell you about Condors."
P1: "But my report for school is about Ducks."
P2: "Ducks are birds. Condors are birds. Both are compatible in the greater discussion about birds."
P1: "But the discussion is about Ducks."
P2: "Sidenote, Condors are also better than Ducks, they have more options, more depth, more interesting features. Talk to your teacher about having your Duck report include Condors."


I get the above exchange more often than not. The suggestion to broaden the scope is nice and all, but often not relevant. If I want to buy a scooter, no one needs to suggest me buying an SUV, it doesn't change the fact that my needs and budget necessitate a scooter.

This....is a misrepresentation of what's going on. A far more appropriate metaphor:

P1: How do I bake a duck a l'orange?
P2: Have you considered roasting your duck?
P1: But I really like duck a l'orange!
P2: I think you'll find roast duck is really good!
P1: But I only have exactly the supplies for duck a l'orange and no other dishes in the universe!!!!
P2: Perhaps if you make a quick trip to the store and acquire these cheap ingredients, you can try a roasted duck, and see how great and easy it is!


P2 is still not quite answering what was asked, but the advice still fundamentally accomplishes the goal, having a duck dinner. Gaming is not a school assignment, and PF and 3.5 are not totally disparate, like ducks and condors. The strawman fallacy is real.

[Daftendirekt]

...and somehow this necessitates telling people about 3.5 options when they are asking for Pathfinder options?

P1: "I want some info about Ducks."
P2: "Let me tell you about Condors."
P1: "But my report for school is about Ducks."
P2: "Ducks are birds. Condors are birds. Both are compatible in the greater discussion about birds."
P1: "But the discussion is about Ducks."
P2: "Sidenote, Condors are also better than Ducks, they have more options, more depth, more interesting features. Talk to your teacher about having your Duck report include Condors."


Condors are ugly as sin though. Have you seen one of those things? Their head looks like a scrotum. Why on earth are we trying to save them?

[Psyren]

This....is a misrepresentation of what's going on. A far more appropriate metaphor:

P1: How do I bake a duck a l'orange?
P2: Have you considered roasting your duck?
P1: But I really like duck a l'orange!
P2: I think you'll find roast duck is really good!
P1: But I only have exactly the supplies for duck a l'orange and no other dishes in the universe!!!!
P2: Perhaps if you make a quick trip to the store and acquire these cheap ingredients, you can try a roasted duck, and see how great and easy it is!


P2 is still not quite answering what was asked, but the advice still fundamentally accomplishes the goal, having a duck dinner. Gaming is not a school assignment, and PF and 3.5 are not totally disparate, like ducks and condors. The strawman fallacy is real.

Exactly, and it's not even a matter of going to the store either (unless the books are banned because nobody has them.) Rather, it's like: "my roommate has the ingredients for roast duck but he hasn't given me any!" "Why is that?" "I haven't asked!" "Well, maybe you should ask, roast duck is great."

[Roguenewb]

Condors are ugly as sin though. Have you seen one of those things? Their head looks like a scrotum. Why on earth are we trying to save them?

Because they poop themselves for defense! That's too awesome to let go extinct.

[Crasical]

It happens because this is primarily a 3.5 board and a lot of people don't actually read other people's posts and just assume. If there where more strictly 3.0 players I think they'd be in the same boat, having to explain that a lot of the advice doesn't apply to their edition and being told to update/backdate/convert it, since they're 'compatible'.

I suspect a certain factor of it is complacency with 3.5, since it has a lot of commonly-accepted easy answers (Assuming that melee will have ToB, that wizards will have Celerity, ect.), and when losing a tool in their kit a lot of posters find it easier to beg for the tool back than to adjust, IE it's easier to suggest someone ask to a crusader than to learn how to play a PF paladin so they can give advice.

EDIT:


P1: How do I bake a duck a l'orange?
P2: Have you considered roasting your duck?
P1: But I really like duck a l'orange!
P2: I think you'll find roast duck is really good!
P1: But I only have exactly the supplies for duck a l'orange and no other dishes in the universe!!!!
P2: Perhaps if you make a quick trip to the store and acquire these cheap ingredients, you can try a roasted duck, and see how great and easy it is!


That's also a pretty terrible metaphor, considering that Duck a l'orange is a different dish than roast duck. If I order a steak at a restaurant and I'm brought a hamburger instead, I'd be kind of irritated, even if the hamburger is -really good-, because it's not what I asked for even if it's beef either way. The flavor and experience are going to be different.

[Xervous]

So this is a thread about misunderstanding that has devolved into arguing about arguments. Brilliant.

[nedz]

Quite often the thread title/OP doesn't specify [PF] at first.People post advice assuming 3.5. [PF] then gets added to the thread title/OP.

Also: a lot of 3.5 options are available in PF games, not all perhaps but certainly many. So: posting 3.5 advice, especially about feats, can be relevant.

Furthermore: the advice posted, even if not directly applicable, may stimulate further ideas.

[137beth]

Which brings me back to a question I asked.
What caveat should I use that isn't rude or forceful, but still gets the point across?



Probably you should just specify which sources are allowed. If you don't specify, people are going to suggest anything that might be helpful, and expect you to pick out the stuff that is allowable. It's better to give more information than necessary than to give not enough. Unless you specify what sources are allowed, you can't complain that people don't know.


@Segev
Not only do I think I would still get people prying as to why no 3.5, and dropping suggestions, but those who don't would probably ask why such a forceful caveat. Which would then likely boil back down to this discussion.
Though I think that including "if you want to provide 3.5 suggestions do it in another thread" isn't too forceful or unclear.
Oh, so you haven't actually tried? Well, there's your answer:smallsigh:

[Karoht]

@Duck a l'orange VS Roasted Duck analogy
Why on earth is it so very difficult for people to understand that if I wanted information on Roasted Duck, I would have asked for information about Roasted Duck.
If I wanted to buy an SUV, I wouldn't have gone up to the salesman and asked for a scooter.
If I wanted info on 3.5, my thread would be titled with [3.5], I would have named 3.5 sources, etc.
Is this really that difficult for others to understand?



That's also a pretty terrible metaphor, considering that Duck a l'orange is a different dish than roast duck. If I order a steak at a restaurant and I'm brought a hamburger instead, I'd be kind of irritated, even if the hamburger is -really good-, because it's not what I asked for even if it's beef either way. The flavor and experience are going to be different.Oh my god, finally a shred of sympathy towards the problem. If you wanted a hamburger you would have used the word hamburger and not "12oz T-bone steak, mid-rare."
And before you pedantic types point out that hamburger can contain steak, a hamburger is not a steak.



It happens because this is primarily a 3.5 board and a lot of people don't actually read other people's posts and just assume. If there where more strictly 3.0 players I think they'd be in the same boat, having to explain that a lot of the advice doesn't apply to their edition and being told to update/backdate/convert it, since they're 'compatible'.
I suspect a certain factor of it is complacency with 3.5, since it has a lot of commonly-accepted easy answers (Assuming that melee will have ToB, that wizards will have Celerity, ect.), and when losing a tool in their kit a lot of posters find it easier to beg for the tool back than to adjust, IE it's easier to suggest someone ask to a crusader than to learn how to play a PF paladin so they can give advice.This.

So, thoughts on how to avoid it?

[Segev]

Only, again, spelling it out clearly in the opening post, and then, when somebody inevitably misses or ignores it, politely re-railing the thread and suggesting that, if they really want to discuss 3.5 solutions to the problem, a new thread would be the appropriate place.

Consistent re-affirmation of that will usually keep a thread on topic fairly effectively. But no, you're not going to be able to control the direction of conversation without doing this; conversations have to be managed by their leaders to stay on-topic. Otherwise, they meander.

[Karoht]

Only, again, spelling it out clearly in the opening post, and then, when somebody inevitably misses or ignores it, politely re-railing the thread and suggesting that, if they really want to discuss 3.5 solutions to the problem, a new thread would be the appropriate place.

Consistent re-affirmation of that will usually keep a thread on topic fairly effectively. But no, you're not going to be able to control the direction of conversation without doing this; conversations have to be managed by their leaders to stay on-topic. Otherwise, they meander.
I always add [PF] to my thread titles, maybe I should double up.
[PF] Thread_Title [PF]

[Roguenewb]

@Duck a l'orange VS Roasted Duck analogy
Why on earth is it so very difficult for people to understand that if I wanted information on Roasted Duck, I would have asked for information about Roasted Duck.
If I wanted to buy an SUV, I wouldn't have gone up to the salesman and asked for a scooter.
If I wanted info on 3.5, my thread would be titled with [3.5], I would have named 3.5 sources, etc.
Is this really that difficult for others to understand?


Oh my god, finally a shred of sympathy towards the problem. If you wanted a hamburger you would have used the word hamburger and not "12oz T-bone steak, mid-rare."
And before you pedantic types point out that hamburger can contain steak, a hamburger is not a steak.


This.

So, thoughts on how to avoid it?

Because PF AND 3.5 ARE COMPATIBLE!!!! WHAT ABOUT THIS IDEA IS GIVING YOU SO MUCH TROUBLE?

Scooters =/= compatible with the thigngs cars are, steak =/= compatible with hamburger buns and such. The difference between 3.5 and PF is tiny, and there is no reason you can't use one in the other, a lot of people on this board (the ones you are complaining about) understand this fact, and thus are giving suggestions from a mixed pool.

Best possible metaphor: You asked for a nearby gas station, and someone told you a nearby place to get 10% ethanol gasoline. Works in all the same engines, (is better in many ways), but isn't exactly what you asked for. Now you complain to that person for helping. That's you. That's what you're doing. Get over the PF==3.5++ thing. They are functionally interchangeable regarding content.


If you wanna avoid it put a big I'M PEDANTIC, DON'T GIVE ME OPTIONS FROM THE WHOLE REPERTOIRE label on the top of your post.

[Segev]

I always add [PF] to my thread titles, maybe I should double up.
[PF] Thread_Title [PF]

No, because as established, the baseline assumption of [PF] is that it includes converted 3.5 material as valid source.

[PF][not 3.5] Thread_Title <--- This would be the bare minimum, and still probably not sufficient because people are people and you don't want to have to explain at length why "not 3.5" means "under any circumstances, so don't even bring it up" and you fear being vehement.

[Psyren]

Oh my god, finally a shred of sympathy towards the problem.

I would guess part of the reason there isn't as much sympathy as you might like is that most people don't consider it to be that big a deal.


I always add [PF] to my thread titles, maybe I should double up.
[PF] Thread_Title [PF]

How about [PF Only]? If you feel that strongly about it, that is.

But again, skimming thread titles and opening posts is common, so no matter what precautions you take I'm sure some will slip through. I've made mistakes while submitting recommendations on occasion, though I at least try to edit my post if I realize it.

[137beth]

So, thoughts on how to avoid it?
I just told you, you weren't paying attention/didn't read posts before responding.

Probably you should just specify which sources are allowed. If you don't specify, people are going to suggest anything that might be helpful, and expect you to pick out the stuff that is allowable. It's better to give more information than necessary than to give not enough. Unless you specify what sources are allowed, you can't complain that people don't know.
I mean, if you/your DM decides to ban Ultimate Magic, there's no way for us to know that unless you say so. Is it really too hard to tell people which books have been banned?

[Karoht]

I just told you, you weren't paying attention/didn't read posts before responding.

I mean, if you/your DM decides to ban Ultimate Magic, there's no way for us to know that unless you say so. Is it really too hard to tell people which books have been banned?You missed the part where I include [PF] in every PF thread I've ever done. I've also specified no 3.5, still get 3.5.
You also missed the other examples I cited. You also missed the part where I said no 3rd party, got 3rd party suggestions.

But yeah, is it too hard for people to read the parts that say "not using 3.5" and just take it as a given that someone doesn't want 3.5 suggestions? Or an arguement about 3.5 and it's use with Pathfinder? Apparently it is.


==========================

Because PF AND 3.5 ARE COMPATIBLE!!!! WHAT ABOUT THIS IDEA IS GIVING YOU SO MUCH TROUBLE?Wow, rude much?
Why are you trying to force something I don't want down my throat? Ever think of that?


The difference between 3.5 and PF is tiny, and there is no reason you can't use one in the other, a lot of people on this board (the ones you are complaining about) understand this fact, and thus are giving suggestions from a mixed pool.Even though someone has stated that it is NOT desired and NOT helpful due to outside factors which are not up for debate and trying to avoid said debate? You seem to miss the point that giving suggestions I can't use is pointless, no matter how good those suggestions are.


Best possible metaphor: You asked for a nearby gas station, and someone told you a nearby place to get 10% ethanol gasoline. Works in all the same engines, (is better in many ways), but isn't exactly what you asked for. Now you complain to that person for helping. That's you. That's what you are doingMaybe I have an ethical quandry related to ethanol gasoline, due to the (warning, potentially political reference, clearly for example sake only) issue that farmers selling corn for production of ethanol drove up food prices dramatically, hurting poor people the world over. So I don't want to touch ethanol and support that business model. Maybe I just don't like giving WotC my money, time, or attention?
Rather than just accepting that (especially when it is prefaced) you are forcing the issue with this arguement. When you could just point me to a different gas station, you are choosing to argue about it, you are choosing to force the issue.
Ramming something down my throat that I didn't ask for. Thats you. Thats what you are doing. And you're now yelling at me in all caps that I am wrong for having a preference, or for my DM having a preference, or for my game group having a preference, and unless I defend that preference, you are going to continue to force feed me something I don't want. Grats, what an awesome person you are.


Get over the PF==3.5++ thing. They are functionally interchangeable regarding content.Just because you insist they are the same thing does not make it so, especially in the eyes of others. Just because you do not see them as separate in any way, shape, or form, does not mean that others do not see a distinction.
Notice how I haven't argued that distinction in any way here in this thread?
At no point have I denied that 3.5 and PF are interchangeable.


If you wanna avoid it put a big I'M PEDANTIC, DON'T GIVE ME OPTIONS FROM THE WHOLE REPERTOIRE label on the top of your post.I really don't care what color this was in. The suggestion that I should brand myself in a derrogatory way, due to the choices of either myself, my DM, or my game group, is absolutely absurd.

[Psyren]

If people start an edition war in your thread that's a different matter; it's spam (and likely includes some flaming/trolling as well) so you're well within your rights to report the offenders. And I include myself in this since I've gotten pulled into arguments in the past that way too.

As for why it happens... well, it's the same reason every internet argument happens: http://xkcd.com/386/

[Karoht]

If people start an edition war in your thread that's a different matter; it's spam (and likely includes some flaming/trolling as well) so you're well within your rights to report the offenders. And I include myself in this since I've gotten pulled into arguments in the past that way too.

As for why it happens... well, it's the same reason every internet argument happens: http://xkcd.com/386/
Most people seem to be supportive of just reporting people for off-topic if it occurs, and leaving it up to the mods. I was hesitant to do so in the past, I'm now a bit more comfortable with considering that option.

In future I will try to preface my threads a bit better, I've had a few good tips here, though most were already being used. I think I have a better idea on how to preface the thread strongly enough to avoid the problem, but not so strongly as to come across as rude or scare off people from posting.



[PF Only] Thread Title [PF Only]
Preface: Pathfinder material only, 3.5 materials are not permitted due to DM/Group restrictions. Anything on the Pathfindersrd.com is fine EXCEPT for 3rd party material. As such please keep any suggestion related to Pathfinder material, 3.5 suggestions can post elsewhere or by PM where appropriate.

Goal: [Description of stuff]

Stuff: [Stuff]

Thoughts?

[strider24seven]

3.5 materials are not permitted due to DM/Group restrictions

You will likely need to underline, italicize, and bold this section.

Otherwise it looks like a clear and concise format.

[Psyren]

All that preamble just seems really anal and off-putting, which may hurt people's willingness to reply.


I would just start the post with "PF material only. Thanks!" (bolded like that, without quotes), then a couple of line breaks and lead into the post itself. It's not a thesis or presentation, it's a thread on a gaming forum. And maybe [PF Only] in the thread title instead of [PF]. That's about it.

I certainly wouldn't bother with [PF]Title[PF], a preface and a goal. But that's just me.

[Kudaku]

As has already been mentioned, there is a significant and intentional degree of overlap between 3.x and PF - it is usually very easy to adapt 3.x material into PF. If the material in 3.x does what you want to do and seem unable to do with PF, it usually doesn't hurt you to at the very least ask your GM?

As regards to the trolling... As a poster who's on the outside looking in (I occasionally post in 3.5 threads and suggest PF material), I tend to make these posts because I want to to help out the OP and there's usually no harm in, at the very least, asking the GM to allow a specific feat, spell etc. Worst case scenario he says no and you go back to looking while best case scenario he says yes and all your problems are solved.

Example of OP:
My 3.5 game allows book X Y and Z. I want to make character F. How can I build him?

Example of Reply:
Well, I realize book R wasn't on your list but it has feat T that is perfect for what you're trying to make - maybe you could ask your GM to look at the feat and see how he feels about it?

[Psyren]

As regards to the trolling... As a poster who's on the outside looking in (I occasionally post in 3.5 threads and suggest PF material), I tend to make these posts because I want to to help out the OP and there's usually no harm in, at the very least, asking the GM to allow a specific feat, spell etc. Worst case scenario he says no and you go back to looking while best case scenario he says yes and all your problems are solved.

Example of OP:
My 3.5 game allows book X Y and Z. I want to make character F. How can I build him?

Example of Reply:
Well, I realize book R wasn't on your list but it has feat T that is perfect for what you're trying to make - maybe you could ask your GM to look at the feat and see how he feels about it?

Exactly, people are just trying to help when they go "off-list" or even dip into 3.5 material wholesale.

[Segev]

Maybe I have an ethical quandry related to ethanol gasoline, due to the (warning, potentially political reference, clearly for example sake only) issue that farmers selling corn for production of ethanol drove up food prices dramatically, hurting poor people the world over. So I don't want to touch ethanol and support that business model.

There's also the fact that ethanol is actually more corrosive to your engine than regular gas. >_> <_<

[Karoht]

Reply to Kudaku and Psyren's posts
"Exactly, people are just trying to help when they go "off-list" or even dip into 3.5 material wholesale."
Right, and thats fine and all, but here's my issue with that.
1-When there is one post suggesting 3.5 stuff, another is sure to chime in.
2-If I explain that it isn't helpful and that poster turns it into an edition wars arguement.



I would guess part of the reason there isn't as much sympathy as you might like is that most people don't consider it to be that big a deal.I don't consider having my thread hijacked and turned into an edition war to be a small thing. Nor do I consider having someone's opinion rammed down my throat, all because of their reading comprehension failure/laziness to be a small thing. But hey, maybe I am being too serious. I figured this thread was worth opening to avoid the inevitable blow up that would take place in a PF only thread.

*looks up at Roguenewb's post*
Oh look, a prime example of what I dislike and have been trying to avoid. Thanks!
Yeah, I totally deserve it. I'm practically asking for the antagonization by saying PF only on a 3.5 board. Was it this bad around here when 4th ed came out? See why I previously thought it was trolling behavior?


All that preamble just seems really anal and off-putting, which may hurt people's willingness to reply.Which is what I am trying to avoid.


I would just start the post with "PF material only. Thanks!" (bolded like that, without quotes), then a couple of line breaks and lead into the post itself. It's not a thesis or presentation, it's a thread on a gaming forum. And maybe [PF Only] in the thread title instead of [PF]. That's about it.When I said PF material only, I got 3.5 suggestions and edition wars. Maybe we can expand on it?


I certainly wouldn't bother with [PF]Title[PF], a preface and a goal. But that's just me.Agreed. I am trying to keep this in the scope of 'post for a gaming forum'


Example
[PF Only] Thread Title
Pathfinder material only, 3.5 materials are not permitted due to DM/Group restrictions, so Pathfinder suggestions only, thanks.
Anything on the Pathfindersrd.com is fine except for 3rd party material.

I'm trying to build...
Here's what I'm considering...
Any suggestions for...?
ETC


Does that sound a bit 'softer' but still hit most of the bases?

[Bounty Hunter]

I thought this thread was going to be about RPG Rulesets, but the posts so far as just making me hungry.

[Psyren]

When I said PF material only, I got 3.5 suggestions and edition wars.

Every single time, without fail? I find that pretty hard to swallow Karoht.



Does that sound a bit 'softer' but still hit most of the bases?

Actually yes, I'd be fine with this and still want to help you.

[Roguenewb]

-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
--------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------
------------------
-------------------------------------------
---



The above post means nothing and gets nowhere. Just like a post about a 3.5 suggestion in a PF only thread. Has the thread been destroyed by this post? Is it impossible to get more value out of the thread? No? Then I guess you can just ignore when someone gives you a 3.5 answer. Don't do the alpha geek thing and get all upset because someone had a different opinion.

[137beth]

-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
--------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------
------------------
-------------------------------------------
---



The above post means nothing and gets nowhere. Just like a post about a 3.5 suggestion in a PF only thread. Has the thread been destroyed by this post? Is it impossible to get more value out of the thread? No? Then I guess you can just ignore when someone gives you a 3.5 answer. Don't do the alpha geek thing and get all upset because someone had a different opinion.

Have you tried asking your DM whether he/she would allow dashes? Ya never know until you ask. Besides, a ----- would really help your build, and is significantly better than ----, especially when combined with --.

[Karoht]

The above post means nothing and gets nowhere. Just like a post about a 3.5 suggestion in a PF only thread.So you admit that a 3.5 post in a PF thread is off-topic and a waste of time and energy.


Has the thread been destroyed by this post?If it hijacks the thread with an edition war, then yes.


Don't do the alpha geek thing and get all upset because someone had a different opinion.Says the guy who opened up with all caps because someone had a different opinion on the usefulness of 3.5 posts in a PF thread. Followed by suggestiong the the person with a differing opinion label themselves in a second all caps response. Right.

[Optimator]

It's the internet. I'd suggest taking it on the chin and going to the next relevant post. I'd also chime in with the crowd saying these posters are usually just trying to help.

[Kudaku]

So you admit that a 3.5 post in a PF thread is off-topic and a waste of time and energy.
I think he admits that in your threads, a 3.5 post in a PF thread is off-topic and a waste of time and energy. In someone else's thread, a post linking 3.5 content in a PF thread could still be both useful and viable. Even so, in your particular threads his post is for all intents and purposes air or spam - the best option is to ignore it or politely ask posters to limit themselves to approved material.

In general when I see a post that goes "3.5" - "question", it doesn't elaborate on any particular limitations so I don't know why those limitations are in place or how stringent they are.

If the OP reads "my GM has limited us to book x, y, and z because he's a busy guy but he might allow limited off-list material if not too broken" then I'll happily suggest stuff outside that list, though I'd probably start the post with "I realize this is not on the approved list, but I think this feat from book A would really fit the character concept you're trying to make etc".
If the OP reads "my GM has limited us to book x, y, and z and is a bit of a control freak, so no other content is allowed" I probably wouldn't post, or only post if I could make useful suggestions within the limitations laid out in the book list.

Most of the time though the OP won't actually specify anything apart from listing what system they're using, so I tend err on the side of caution - better to present advice that may or may not be useful than to not bother at all, right?

For what it's worth I agree with the other posters in that clearly labeling your post with strong formatting and a bit of context for why material is not allowed will cut down on or remove the problem:
"I want to make a Dawnflower Dervish Bard but I'm not crazy about the scimitar, what are my options? Please note that my GM does not allow any 3.5 or 3.0 material due to rules bloat and a busy schedule, and heavily frowns on 3rd party material."

You mentioned your threads turns into edition wars... Mind linking to a few of your previous threads?

[Karoht]

I love how we were starting to get into constructive territory, only for someone to turn it right back around again.

I don't give a hoot what you feel is offensive or annoying or isn't. Clearly you don't care what I find offensive or annoying. This is a thread trying to constructively address the problem and find ways to avoid the issue presenting itself. Thanks for the "deal with it" remarks. Highly constructive.

I don't feel a need to justify this any further. I've cited examples, I've cited analogies, it is clear to me that people just do not understand for some reason. What I find rather hypocritical is people telling me to ignore it, yet they are taking the time to read this thread, and be annoyed enough to tell me to ignore it.

I don't feel like being criticized (or antagonized) any further on the basis that I dislike something and others lack the ability to comprehend it. To those of you who did provide something constructive, I appreciate it greatly. I've been able to work through some tips and get some feedback. Sadly, the vitriol to constructive feedback ratio was remarkably out of alignment for what I expected of this board.

Thanks again, and cheers.

[Psyren]

Example
[PF Only] Thread Title
Pathfinder material only, 3.5 materials are not permitted due to DM/Group restrictions, so Pathfinder suggestions only, thanks.
Anything on the Pathfindersrd.com is fine except for 3rd party material.

I'm trying to build...
Here's what I'm considering...
Any suggestions for...?
ETC

Since this is ending, I'll reiterate that I consider the above format to be perfectly reasonable.

[EvilJames]

You the final suggested formats will probably help. However some will get through, most likely do to people missing that part of your post. It happens, nobody is perfect. Just politely say that "the DM won't allow it" or simply reiterate "PF only please," and that should be fine for most things.

On the subject of how this thread went, now obviously people caps locking things that you already understand, isn't helpful, and I certainly understand getting annoyed by that. However most of your analogies were strawmen, and you seemed to get offended when people suggested that the people making 3.5 suggestions were anything other than trolls/ idiots. That makes it harder to sympathize with your problem. Also the idea that every post derails into and edition war seems a little far fetched, so that also makes your frustration a little hard sympathize with, as the only way that could really work would be for you to initiate one to every 3.5 response. However if you really are just unlucky enough to have it happen through no encouragement of your own then I truly do sympathize, because that would get annoying fast.

Anyway, good luck and good gaming on all your future games.
And hopefully better luck on your posts.