Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

2,748 posts (2,776 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,748 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The Things They Carried


Christopk-K wrote:

You are the GM. if you need the NPC to return alive he will. Don't let mechanics spoil your story.

This should stay a special thing though. If every bad guy comes back the PCs will be frustrated.

As a DM I'm not a fan of this. Basically, if you want a recurring bad guy then you need to give them an exit plan ahead of time. Alternatively, don't stat up and fight with NPC's that you don't want to die. Don't take the victory away from your players, if they won fairly they should get to keep the win.

Who knows? Maybe that bad guy had a lieutenant who is really upset that his boss is dead.


MagusJanus wrote:

Subtle facial clues that hint one straw is the short one is my preferred go-to. Switching up whether or not it's the short straw I'm hinting about after awhile of hinting at the same type is also good; causes them to misread and pull the wrong straw. Especially if it only happens every so often...

I have also used this to end up with the short straw a few times. There are times when the group insists upon drawing straws for an event, but you know you have to be the one to do it.

Again, you are describing ways to leverage your already unfair advantage. That's not the topic at hand.


MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
The choices of others are your odds.
No, the choices don't actually affect your odds. They just determine the results.

Not mathematically true. Especially since odds exist to predict the chance of results coming about.

Let's take the math Steve Geddes posted on the first page and alter it to reflect the the first player drawing the draw one more game on average due to the manipulations.

2/4 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 4/24 = 1/6

That is the approximate chance, at the end, of the final player drawing a straw, just due to the first player drawing the short straw more frequently. It is not altering how many straws are actually short straws, but is altering how frequently the first player draws the straw.

Yes. If you magically change the odds so the first person is more likely to draw the short straw, it's better not to be the first person. Still doesn't matter whether you're second or last, unless you also decide to change those odds.

The math posted was used by Geddes to show that the odds of the first, second, and third person on their individual picks do not change the overall odds of the last person picking the short straw.

I'm demonstrating that changing the rate of short straw picks of the first person through manipulation does change the odds of the last person picking. Which, as you noted, can be cheating in some of the ways it's done.

This is only true if you are allowed to change the draw order on the fly AND you are the ONLY one allowed to change the order.

Basically, you are describing a method of leveraging the unfair advantage you already had.


Whiskeyjack 42 wrote:

Well, since you asked so nicely! My darling wife got me/allowed me to get UM, UC, ACG, and ISWG, plus Hero Lab. Just getting started, a little late to the Pathfinder party. I also got a large Chessex Battle Mat.

I'm grateful and feel extremely loved.

Was it the mondo mat? I so want a mondo mat!


I don't see what that has to do with defining 50% of the population as 1-dimensional binary options. Or what that has to do with people pointing out that defining 50% of the population as a 1-dimensional binary option makes someone kind-of a jerk.


captain yesterday wrote:

Okaay?

1. You dont know me or my family, so please refrain from the insults:)
2. Keep the politics elsewhere, if you have a parenting story...
3. Merry Christmas:)

Calling a spade a spade isn't an insult or politics.


No, it just means that you don't have to have your physical book to prepare from. You still have to know it and it still has to be in your spellbook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
also girls don't have a middle ground they are either A) super nice and helpful or B) mean, a bit spiteful, and vindictive
Comments like these really aren't helping the discussion any—please refrain from making blanket statements like this.

No one else seemed to find it a problem, nor was it meant to be, it was just what i've noticed at my my daughter's school, and don't get me started on how stupid, selfish and insensitive boys can act.....

i understand you live in Seattle but not everything is meant to offend or start a fight:)

edit: and also it was a joke, lighten up! its Christmas:-)

You can't hide blatant sexism behind jokes or Christmas. That you think the statement isn't a big deal is even more telling than the statement itself.


Spell #1: snapdragon fireworks


Skill: Perform (Oratory)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raymond Lambert wrote:
A recent study of dice rolling showed tbat d6 with curved corners and pips were actually twice as likely to roll a one then the other numbers. You would need d6 with flat straight edges and numbers instead of pips. Casino gambling dice should be the most likely trustworthy dice.

That study had serious issues.


13 STR - 150lbs

Trade Goods -
500 disposable lighters (20 lbs)
160 crappy LED flashlights (10 lbs)
1000 crappy ink pens (10 lbs)
80 crappy digital watches (10 lbs)
80 solar scientific calculators (20 lbs)
Cocaine (20 lbs)
Twinkies (10 lbs)

Personal Gear -
100 treble fish hooks
50 lb test fish line
Fishing pole
K-bar
Leatherman
Whetstone
Good Boots
Good Jacket w/ removable liner
Gloves
Harness Leather Belt
A Frakking Hat
Wool Scarf
Sunglasses
Extra Socks
550 Paracord
Iodine Tablets
50 Clif Bars
50 GU Energy Gels
Aluminum Water Bottle
Camel Pak
Deodorant
Toothbrush
Toothpaste
Hatchet/Hammer/Claw
Machete
Bug Spray
Extra Contacts
iPod with music
iPad with books
handcrank charger
Extra headphones
Backpack, Cargo pants, pocket vest.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's a matter of scale.
Agreed, seed the oceans.
There's also a matter of unintended consequences.

Consequences Shomsequences. Plus, nothing we put in the ocean today will be any worse than what we've put there already


RumpinRufus wrote:
I just want to take a moment to celebrate the absurdity that a thread on whether "5/2=2" now has 200+ posts and counting, and has gotten so heated a moderator had to step in.

You're either in an RPG forum or a Discrete Math class.


thejeff wrote:
It's a matter of scale.

Agreed, seed the oceans.


HangarFlying wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
It's hard to continue playing chess without your king. :)
You think you "won" because you think you're right. That doesn't mean that you actually are.

He thinks he won because he caputured you king. You think you're still playing because you have pieces left on the board.


_Ozy_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Just because general rules call for rounding down in some circumstances doesn't change the fact that it is still less than half. Is 2HD greater than half of 5 HD? No, it is not. Since X.5 HD creatures do not exist, you must beat that .5 threshold to count. So if you're 5 HD, you must defeat a 3 HD creature to beat that threshold.

Um, no.

Quote:
Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).

I create a Simulacrum of a 5HD creature. That creature has half the HD of the original. How many HD does that creature have?

In short, how many HD are half the HD of a 5HD creature?

This is the best argument in the thread yet, for either side.


Bandw2 wrote:
I really wish more people understood integer math, and then pathfinder could just say, use integer math since there is no effective half level. AKA, you drop the remainder, and keep the whole number.

The problem is the game itself gives fractional values for some things.


HangarFlying wrote:
Just because general rules call for rounding down in some circumstances doesn't change the fact that it is still less than half. Is 2HD greater than half of 5 HD? No, it is not. Since X.5 HD creatures do not exist, you must beat that .5 threshold to count. So if you're 5 HD, you must defeat a 3 HD creature to beat that threshold.

So now that your argument has been debunked you are not convinced? Have you been arguing in bad faith?


Also, Hangar, you are conveniently leaving out this example.

What is the HP for a 7HD creature with 16CON?

Hint: you're going to have to round.


HangarFlying wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Someone give me the average for 8d10. If you've been one to say that you always round down and come up with 44, you're a hypocrite. If you come up with 40, you're wrong.

EDIT: better example.

? I'm not sure what this even means.

Nobody is disputing that mathematically speaking, 5/2 = 2.5.

We are saying that in general, Pathfinder treats that 2.5 as 2 unless specified otherwise.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure how your example makes sense, this is how you calculate the average of 8d10:

(8*1 + 8*10) / 2 = 44

WTF does 'rounding' have to do with it?

Because the average result of a d10 is 5.5. For those saying that you always round down, you would have to apply that logic and round it to 5, which is wrong.

No you don't, because dice averages don't happen during gameplay. So the rules governing gameplay do not apply to them. Unless you have an example of where the game asks you to average dice during gameplay.

Spoiler: you don't. Because if it happened during gameplay the game would tell you to ROLL the dice to determine the result.


HangarFlying wrote:
Well, every NPC stat block in existence uses average rolls.

Stat blocks are given by the game, the game never asks players to make them. So, when does the game ask players (or GMs) to average dice?


HangarFlying wrote:

Someone give me the average for 8d10. If you've been one to say that you always round down and come up with 44, you're a hypocrite. If you come up with 40, you're wrong.

EDIT: better example.

When does the game ask you to average dice values?


N N 959 wrote:
The second time I posted it said something different.

You need to ignore him. Every 3-4k posts TOZ goes on a trolling spree. It will last a few days. Oh, and he is masterful.


gnomersy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Umm, no. Just because you create a new sentence doesn't mean that qualifier is lost. You don't have to re-qualify every subject and predicate in every sentence you write.

The qualifier isn't lost however you can't assume that everything in the same paragraph is qualified. If it were to be you should explicitly refer to the qualifier in a qualified statement. For example, if rounding half of 7, the answer is 3. Would be a better wording in the event that they wanted it to be qualified. And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.

@Fretgod99 - Also the fact that they FAQ'd the post in which you commented earlier and the FAQ explicitly changed the language of the feat from +1/2xdmg to use 2x for Dragon Style implies there is a functional difference which means you would have to round, but the rules don't say that, it's implied within the game system.

So while you don't agree that the sentence directly preceding your "ah-ha!" sentence qualifies your "ah-ha!" sentence, you want us to use your "ah-ha!" sentence to qualify the entire rest of the CRB and every subsequent rules document?


thejeff wrote:
Grand Magus wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Maybe, but everything I've seen suggests bioplastic is a dead-end technology and developing new plastics otherwise is just finding creative new ways to use oil.

Bioplastic tends to be a dead end because of either requiring a lot of water (running afoul of the increasing water problems) or specialized fertilizers once soil nutrients run out (which typically require oil to produce). The water issue is also why biodiesel from corn is a dead-end.

Increasingly, it's looking like we're investigating all of the wrong fields and, instead, should be investigating technologies that clean water and be rid of water pollution. Because, increasingly, we're finding we have so many solutions, but we don't have the water supplies for them to be practical.

So oil has other uses than rocket fuel? Yes, I see your point.

But, it seems fresh air takes precedence over water, because we can
always use hydrogen and oxygen to make water; given we have oil to
power the machines to manufacture it.

My appreciation for oil is increasing, as I realize it is super
powerful, multi-use stuff. Maybe we can find Oil on other planets and
bring it home. There's gotta be more oil on Venus.

It's all about energy. With sufficient power to work with we can make clean water. Scrubbing pollutants out of the air will be harder.

It also helps if the energy source is clean enough not to pollute your water source further.
Also, we can produce drinking water and maybe farming water, it's less likely we're going to clean the rivers and the oceans.

Bioplastics aren't a dead end. If you have another source of energy. If you're relying on oil for all the inputs, then it's not very helpful.

As for biodiesel, you're right that corn is too fertilizer intensive to be efficient. As the technology improves though, feedstocks that grow with less inputs may be viable.

CO2 scrubbing is easy. Algae farms and Cyanobacteria. Algae has the side benefit of being a source for biodiesel.


gnomersy wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
PRD wrote:
Rounding: Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value. Unless otherwise stated, always round down. For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

Actually that's not true.

Due to the independence of the statements in the Rounding: section as noted by the use of periods each of those statements are separate "Occasionally the rules ask you to round ..." "Unless otherwise stated, always round down." and "For example, if you are asked to, 'Take half of 7, the result would be 3.'" are all independent of one another if they weren't the structure of the sentence would be different.

Which is why the rule is clear that taking half of something or dividing in general is an example of being told to round. As I noted nothing in the fireball, spell, or saves entries tells you to round damage and yet examples of damage dealt by spells clearly indicates you were meant to round. Why? Because it told you divide the damage.

Umm, no. Just because you create a new sentence doesn't mean that qualifier is lost. You don't have to re-qualify every subject and predicate in every sentence you write.


16 DEX with combat reflexes gets to make 4 AOO's a round.


Sara Marie wrote:
I've removed some posts and responses to them. Back and forth bickering does not belong on the Paizo messageboards. Both posters involved in the sniping I just removed have been here long enough to know better. If you are unclear on this, please review our Community Guidelines, there is a link to these guidelines underneath each post composing box.

Maybe my post got wiped out as collateral damage but all I said was that sometimes I agree with Ozy and sometimes I dont...


gnomersy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I've always ruled that, to identify a creature, you need 5/10/15+CR.

In the case of a goblin, a common, low-CR creature, that means a DC of 6.

5 (for being common) plus 1.

Even if the creature being identified is a CR 1/8, fractionally that's .125, and 5 < 5.125

Since the dice can only come up either 5 or 6, and nowhere in between, and 5 doesn't meet the DC, then 6 would be the next logical number.

I'm not going to round down its CR for Knowledge checks in the same way I won't round down for regaining Grit.

So I can round up my damage dice for half damage in your games right after all 16.5>16 that just makes sense.

Honestly I don't get what all the hub bub is about whenever you take a fraction you round and you always round down that's pretty much been PF's standard protocol if you want to always round up that's fine too but if you choose to only round up when it benefits you as the GM and force the players to always round down to their detriment it's more like you're just being an a%!~~*$.

As far as running half your level as a hard value, fine but from now on as GM you're obligated to roll on a chart determining the starting XP of every monster after all it just doesn't make sense that every monster starts exactly at a given level and it's only fair that you represent that and keep track of it for every single kobold out of that band of 30 because you made it relevant now.

The game is already stacked in favor of the PC's, not adding round rules that don't exist doesn't make you a dick GM.

You have to make the check, the DC is 10.125. You rolled a 10? You fail. You roll an 11? You succeed. There is no rounding there.


Where does it tell you to round that check?


Quote:
What other evidence do we have to support this interpretation? No other game mechanics comparison for true/false, yes/no, success/failure compares against a fractional number.

Dude.

CRB wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR.

DC is by definition a comparison for "success/failure." Knowledge checks call for fractional DC's for any creature with fractional CR. You've been shown this multiple times but you continue to ignore it.


Eltacolibre wrote:
Horizon Walker has always been a good prc but for some reason, most people avoids it like the plague. I have only seen a horizon walker npc so far, and I literally mean one, since I started playing.

The only horizon walker I've ever seen was my character in Skulls and Shackles. Bard 8 HZW 3. If we ever finish that campaign I think I'll take levels in Sublime Chord.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
CR?

CR isn't a level or HD or really compared to anything in the actual game mechanics. You don't compare 10 + caster level against 10 + CR as far as I know anywhere in the rules.

So, are there any comparisons made vs. any fractional numbers in Pathfinder?

Knowledge checks.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


As far as population goes it is expected to decline in the long term after peaking in the next 100-150 years. This is based on aging population trends and slower reproduction rates in first world nations. There will be a time in our relatively near future (ie less than 500 years) where labor jobs will be unnecessary and virtually all occupations will be research or creative.

Assuming no crash.

Also assuming we manage to restructure society so that those who can't research or produce creative works for sale have some way to survive.

It won't be a reaction it will be an evolution. Similarly to how we don't train people to fletch arrows or show horses anymore. Sure, there are specialists who can do these jobs, but they are far from prolific.

So you are assuming the vast majority of people will be working and effective at research and creative jobs?

We don't fletch or shoe horses much anymore, but we still have plenty of labor jobs. There are things for people to do who aren't cut out for that kind of work. But less than there used to be. We're already having problems with not having enough labor to keep our population employed.

Sorry for not being clear. I think in 500 years time we will have significantly less population. Also I am including things like chef, gardener/florist, tailor/designer, in creative. As well as many repair and maintenance positions in research.


Minor 94-95 is the random drop table. Or, if as a GM you wanted to give a "random" minor item you would roll a d100 and if it came up 94-95 you would award a masterwork silver dagger. The table shouldn't be called "magic items" but sometimes sloppiness gets through an edit.

Stats for dagger, masterwork, and silver are in the equipment chaper of the core rule book.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Game Master Scotty wrote:

In the sense that massive changes are on the horizon that will change the way humanity currently lives forever..

Yes.

We can not sustain the explosive population growth indefinitely.

Our increased food production, transportation and technology relies on a non sustainable resource, fossil fuels.

We will run out. It is a fact.

Will we end up in a Mad Max style world?

No.

Will the way of life we have lived, the comfort we have enjoyed and much of the technology we have created become obsolete?

You bet your bum!

Just my opinion.

As far as population goes it is expected to decline in the long term after peaking in the next 100-150 years. This is based on aging population trends and slower reproduction rates in first world nations. There will be a time in our relatively near future (ie less than 500 years) where labor jobs will be unnecessary and virtually all occupations will be research or creative.

Assuming no crash.

Also assuming we manage to restructure society so that those who can't research or produce creative works for sale have some way to survive.

It won't be a reaction it will be an evolution. Similarly to how we don't train people to fletch arrows or show horses anymore. Sure, there are specialists who can do these jobs, but they are far from prolific.


Game Master Scotty wrote:

In the sense that massive changes are on the horizon that will change the way humanity currently lives forever..

Yes.

We can not sustain the explosive population growth indefinitely.

Our increased food production, transportation and technology relies on a non sustainable resource, fossil fuels.

We will run out. It is a fact.

Will we end up in a Mad Max style world?

No.

Will the way of life we have lived, the comfort we have enjoyed and much of the technology we have created become obsolete?

You bet your bum!

Just my opinion.

As far as population goes it is expected to decline in the long term after peaking in the next 100-150 years. This is based on aging population trends and slower reproduction rates in first world nations. There will be a time in our relatively near future (ie less than 500 years) where labor jobs will be unnecessary and virtually all occupations will be research or creative.


LazarX wrote:
Asmodias wrote:
I am just asking in general, because it feels like the fabric of reality that holds everything together is falling apart...
I remember Plato seeing pretty much the same thing.... only in Greek. In between his complaints about "the younger generation".

Wow, either you're really old or that's Plato Gianakos, the dude who runs the falafel and gyro cart at the mall, you're talking about.


James Risner wrote:
Undone wrote:
So what would it be for a ring of invisibility? Since by default it would be less than the written amount in the book for a higher caster level item.
GMG clarifies that the ring of invisibility is 10,800 gp and raised to 20,000 gp. So CL 4 should be 26,667 gp.

That's a leap in logic right there.


p-sto wrote:

Really at this point all I'm seeing in this thread is an eventual errata that will make monks lose their ki pool should they become non-lawful.

On another note, having spent a bit of time in these forums I'm starting to develop a resentment towards any aspect of Pathfinder that has to do with backwards compatibility.

backwards compatibility is fine, legacy for legacy's sake needs to go.


Lawful
Not Lawful

One of these guys fails. I'll let you guess once before you click.


Avoron wrote:

Any character can take the feat. To use it you need a class ability, or a different class ability, or someone else who has a class ability, or an item.

It's not actually that restricted. It's just a feat that needs certain circumstances in order to help you.

Would you consider any feats with class features as prerequisites "class features masquerading as feats"? Because those are a lot more limited than these are.

Yes.

With the only exceptions being metamagic and crafting feats, because 1/2 or more of the classes have the class features required to access them. Also the various "extra" feats are ok even though I think it's an inelegant solution.


Stikye wrote:

Okay, So, I just got this book, and I was looking at some of the teamwork feats for it, and some of them are awesome, others are completely impossible to use unless you are a cavalier or hunter.

For example
** spoiler omitted **

This feat is impossible to get without tactician or being a hunter, or did I miss the part where your animal companion, eidolon, etc, could qualify to get their own eidolon, AC, or whatever?

Same problem with Shared Healing
** spoiler omitted **

Can we get an FAQ so they can clarify these feats to make them usable without a cavalier granting them with Tactician, or hunter?

Edited due to new knowledge of hunter abilities.

Class features masquerading as feats. Poor design. Move along.


Helcack wrote:
I think maybe level requirement of 4 would be more appropriate, but also wouldn't make much sense in how the Magus gets Arcana.

I like it because you could grab it with your 5th level feat when you MC out of magus.


As far as your cleric idea, I made some NPC's who were whip users, Magus 6, cleric 4, Mystic Theurge 10. PC's got one hell of a suprise when that whip caught them with a harm spell.


I would just make the change to broad study rather than having it be a seperate ability. I also think broad study should be available at 3rd level, but that's a discussion for another thread.


I would use spell perfection on enervation to get free maximize and quicken. Then just cast true strike regularly...


It's because of RPG superstar site traffic. They really should split the web store and Forums from each other. The same slow down happens when a new RPG line product gets released.

1 to 50 of 2,748 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.