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

3,222 posts (3,251 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
It's not the number of posts, but what you do with them, that counts.

Good point, who has the highest "favorited by others" to posts ratio?

Including this post, mine is .204


The only thing I will add to this fairly complete thread is that herolab tends to have issues with more complex character ideas. The more moving parts you expect to transition from a to b the more likly you are to run into a snag. This is never a problem for single-classed characters, but particularly is you have a bunch of stuff that "counts as" stuff and stuff that advances somethings else's stuff, or you are expecting x to stack with y, you may just double check that everything worked out, because that is where the problems lie.

Other than that, the only thing I have to add is that the multiple license for 2 computers are supposed to be in the same "household." I had a friend get one of his licenses shut off because he shared it with his GM. So I don't think that going dutch on herolab is encouraged by the publisher.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Folks, you're heading back towards the sort of comments that gets threads locked down. Picking apart someone's comments word by word isn't going to advance your cause of affecting change.

I'm going to assume (fully understanding the risks) that you directed that comment at me.

I don't play in PFS, but I have considered using it as a tool for pick up games, or for vetting out new players for my home game. I'm just consistently amazed that there is such a general thirst for punitive measures against people that would dare play out of the box with mechanics. This isn't an isolated issue, I've seen many of the actors in this thread express joy and glee at the idea that someone else will no longer be able to play their characters. Actors who carry leadership tags in their namelines. Some of these people say that their fun is degraded because someone else is playing a character they don't care for the theme of, or mechanics behind; and not for reasons related to game balance or relative power levels.

I've kept the PFS subforum arrowed open because I like to be up to date about whats happening in the community, in case I do take the plunge and give it a go. I also understand that forumites are different from the general population, but I find the folks I tend to agree with in the forum are those I would consider "regulars," and those I tend to get frustrated by reading tend to have leadership tags. That is more difficult to explain away as an inappropriately small sample of the forum.

I think for now I'll keep watching but bow out of this thread. I can't say that I feel as though the campaign is a place for me. I don't do well with "authorities" deciding that I can't be trusted to not cheat or be abusive or whatever. From what I see as an outsider, those sorts of conversations always seem to revolve around removing player options, or accusing someone of using a creative mechanic interlock that others don't like. I think that if, as a campaign, you want remove options that you required people to purchase that you are probably making the wrong choice off the bat, but combining that with accusations of cheating, abuse, or munchkining, is unpalatable to me.


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.

I simply do not understand how the word "loophole" reconciles with this statement:

PDT wrote:
The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.

Can you explain it to me? How can someone read the FAQ and come to the conclusion that early entry wasn't the intention of the PDT?


Coriat wrote:
In other news (anecdote warning), I was talking to my high school teacher sister about this whole idea of free community college, and she felt fairly ambivalent about it and also advanced the idea that a focus on early childhood education might deliver the best results.

As a high school teacher, I would be curious to know how she feels about the idea of high school as a vocational/associates system rather than the current paradigm.

Essentially, any course taken after 11th grade should have the rigor and requirements to fulfill course requisites for an equivilantly named/numbered course that would apply toward an academic or vocational credential.

And then, obviously, put high schools in a position to grant that credential or facilitate transfer to a local community college where it could be obtained in less than a year.

Basically, I think that the Obama strategy could be implemented for little to no cost if we work to remove the redundant and superfluous courses being taught at high schools today.


Mark Stratton wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bringing up the planetouched grace period again doesn't really help the argument though. It's just not relevant, unless people really have dozens of 2nd Level characters waiting to abuse such a rules change.

With respect to thejeff, maybe it's not relevant to you, but it most certainly is relevant to John and Mike - John specifically referenced it in his post. That certainly, based on John's posting, played a role in that decision (I am inferring that since he referenced why there wasn't a broader grandfathering ruling made.)

Which is a fairly strong indication of why the folks advocating for an option that removes that concern feel unheard.


Coriat wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Whateves...
The Aeneid, in its entirety wrote:
F%@* the Greeks. Do outlandish stuff to get your way. Go to hell either way. Rome is the bomb. Theus Endiucus.

Now now, the Greeks were important. For example, if it weren't for Homer, Virgil wouldn't have had a Greek poet to be better than.

;)

I'm just sayin, if you really want to give yourself a hard time (or torture your students) you'd translate Livy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I don't condem those that don't like foul language, I just don't see it as some unbearable burden to ignore it if someone is swearing. Especially if that someone is someone you consider a friend.
Replace "foul language" with "racist language" and look how ridiculous the argument becomes.

Replace "foul language," with "to stab me in the eye with a fork," and look how ridiculous the argument becomes.


Coriat wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Coriat wrote:


When I went to a traditional high powered school, they let us take the tests and go off wherever to fill them in. Didn't have to take them in classroom. In the higher level classics courses which I remember better, about half the class would take it somewhere other than the classroom.

Maybe things have changed since my Rutgers days, but I'm pretty sure that even today you can't do that On The Banks.

I had a couple physics classes where we had take-home tests. Over the weekend even. I dreaded those.

15-20 hours working on a test.

Works well in classes where you actually have to know what you're doing, not just look up a few facts.

Open book tests in sciences were pretty formidable in their own right, yeah.

But what I had in mind were closed book tests where they let us wander off to wherever. Like, translating Virgil at a desk, forget that, I'm going someplace else.

Whateves...
The Aeneid, in its entirety wrote:
F$+! the Greeks. Do outlandish stuff to get your way. Go to hell either way. Rome is the bomb. Theus Endiucus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
137ben wrote:
WilliamInnocent wrote:
So in this setting of being a cult leader I could essentually tell my GM, I wont be using my followers to gain an edge in the story or combat. But I would like them to go around like Mormons and spread the word of our Lord and Savior Cthulhu Christ.

The thing to remember about the Leadership feat is that you have to run most of what you do with it by the GM first, even more so than anything else in the game. In 3.5, Leadership is listed in the DMG, while all other feats are in the PHB, to make it clear that Leadership isn't a normal feat.

But yes, that is the kind of thing I have seen Leadership used for in games I ran:)

LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
You get both a cohort AND followers.
Most GM's (and all Living Campaigns which allow the feat) will nix the followers though.

Citation needed.

All GMs I know who use the Leadership feat have it work as written, providing both a cohort and followers. But, then, I don't claim to have discussed the matter with a majority of GMs in the world. I suppose you think you have met a majority of the world's GMs?

Do you seriously expect GM's to allow you to bring 60 followers into a dungeon with you?

And I do speak from experience.. In the three network campaigns that I GMed and played that allowed the Leadership feat, ALL of them banned the follower aspect of the feat.

Yeah, I absolutely expect the game to let me do something stupid like that if I choose. I bring 60 followers into a dungeon who are mostly 1HD, some 2-5HD and they catch a Cone of Cold or any other nasty AOE that's meant for my CR15 ass, they are dead quick fast and in a hurry; along with my leadership score. -2 for every follower killed while in my service. What exactly does someone with a -100 leadership score get? That's right, they get abandoned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:

Quark, "diploma mill" would typically be used to refer to an institution without accreditation or with fraudulent accreditation, which it does not seem is the case here. Similarly according to Wiki they tend to lack personnel and often not offer actual teaching (or if so, from teachers with bogus degrees from the same place). Also does not seem to be the case for this university, which, according to Google, has teaching standards and partnerships with major physical universities.

What makes you think it is a diploma mill or similar to one?

He's 18 and the model is different from a traditional university.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Here's the deal on manspreading, 85% of the photos ever shown are BS. They aren't dudes just lettin it hang out with reckless abandon. They are the result of terribly designed seats that are too narrow to begin with.

1) take a chair and saw the legs so that when you sit in it, your knees are 4 or more inches above your waist with your feet flat on the floor.

2) saw the back legs two more inches.

3) sit in the chair and watch what happens to your legs.

Public transportation seating is designed terribly. If you want people to stay in their slots then build taller seats that don't dump you backwards into them.

Let's not go back into the whole manspreading thing. At least not here. I only threw that link in for the (50s?) poster about the same thing, just to counter the "back in the day when everyone was polite" nonsense.

Fair enough. I'll make an OTD post later tonight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the deal on manspreading, 85% of the photos ever shown are BS. They aren't dudes just lettin it hang out with reckless abandon. They are the result of terribly designed seats that are too narrow to begin with.

1) take a chair and saw the legs so that when you sit in it, your knees are 4 or more inches above your waist with your feet flat on the floor.

2) saw the back legs two more inches.

3) sit in the chair and watch what happens to your legs.

Public transportation seating is designed terribly. If you want people to stay in their slots then build taller seats that don't dump you backwards into them.


thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I have no idea what that is.
manspreading

Thanks!

I now know what that is! (Also, yes: SUPER hard! :D)

Now, given that...

LazarX wrote:
Is this the gamer "manspreading" thread?
... what does this mean? I'm sorry. I'm sleep-deprived, and not quite getting the angle you're applying this to. I'd like to understand, however!

In olden days, manspreading would not be a thing because men were conditioned to be polite, yield seats to ladies or at the least not take up more than one seat. Instead nowadays there is a vocal group arguing that it's their God-given right to spread across three seats to protect their "man parts". Although it's my judgement that the human race would be better off if most of them were removed from the gene pool.

Similarly, I find it shocking that in this thread just how appalling lacking are many folks are in basic civility, and how some seem to have been either totally raised without manners, or simply glory in that lack of them. Some seem determined to cling to that subhuman stereotype about gamers that the rest of us have been trying to prove is utterly wrong.

As I think I noted in that other thread, it's not new. Just a catchy new name and a new twist to it.

I don't really believe in the olden days when everyone was civil and polite.

Holy crap that is the most racist muppet of all time.


Quark Blast wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Tuition[edit]

Students pay a registration fee on a sliding scale of $10 to $50 determined by income and country of residence. University of the People requires a tuition to be paid in the form of a $100 administration fee for each exam a student takes.[14] To complete an Associate degree (A.S.), a student must take 20 exams and 40 exams for a Bachelor Degree, which costs a total of $2,000 and $4,000 respectively. Students who cannot afford to pay can apply for scholarships.[15][/i]

Now that's a different approach. You can learn for free but if you want to be certified you have to pay a very reasonable price for the certification.

They only offer two degrees though and I'm uncertain as to how transferable one of those degrees would be to an actual job. It seems fully legit but looks Diploma Mill-esk to me.

-esque*

And business degrees have always been rather dubious in their value (no matter the institution that awarded them) with a notable exception of 1998-2008. And to be honest, calling it a science degree doesn't make me feel any better about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I have no idea what that is.

manspreading


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Torgerud wrote:

I believe Steven's reference was to a James Jacobs post with that wording - not directly in the old faq.

Its been made pretty clear no one in the general community saw this coming. Although I would argue the old Faq was a bad ruling that is now corrected - neither here nor there - i agree the term 'dodgy' was ill-advised.

This situation is not a matter of the 'banhammer'. The rules of the game changed. The Society organizers implemented in as clear cut and simple a method as they saw reasonable.

@pauljathome - they aren't inherently abusive.. based on the past, any such leeway would be abused by portions of the community.

@BigDTBone - This thread and forum are not the place to argue the merits of the FAQ's change - but to have a productive discussion about the implementations and effect on PFS.

I made no value arguments of any kind. I saw passive-aggressive behavior toward someone expressing frustration at the situation and challenged it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

(1) I don't recall any mention of risk in the FAQ.

(2) The FAQ said that IF this ruling caused balance issues it MAY be revisited. A year and a half later no one I could see was reporting balance issues. There were still a bunch of rumblings about "the icky FAQ that tastes bad and I don't like it" going around but I can't get anyone to point be to a single build or instance where this ruling caused a balance problem.

(3) Could you show me where you saw the balance problem with the previous FAQ?

I paraphrased. And no, since I did not make the decision, I can not show you anything.

Maybe since you don't even have an example of what might have possibly triggered the clause you were so happy to cite, you should instead accept that some people are not happy and back off telling them, "you should have seen it coming. Neener neener" (paraphrase, don't hold me accountable). Nobody saw this comming and it is completely unreasonable tell people that they should have known their builds were in Jeopardy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's players drink their milk.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
The Fox wrote:
First, I don't think it was "a dodgy path" when there was a FAQ which specified that the rules allow it. It seemed like an endorsement from the PDT.
With a specific clause stating 'this may change, use at your own risk'.

(1) I don't recall any mention of risk in the FAQ.

(2) The FAQ said that IF this ruling caused balance issues it MAY be revisited. A year and a half later no one I could see was reporting balance issues. There were still a bunch of rumblings about "the icky FAQ that tastes bad and I don't like it" going around but I can't get anyone to point be to a single build or instance where this ruling caused a balance problem.

(3) Could you show me where you saw the balance problem with the previous FAQ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Indeed. He pretty much just hopped into the thread to rant about how some players are scumbags who do not appreciate the holy perfection of the Divine God-GM, because he is deeply and personally offended by the heretical idea that there might be GMs out there who are imperfect, and who players should actually talk to about their problems.

You got problems, kid.

Your as negative as possible interpretation says more.about you than it does him.

Possibly true if Weslocke didn't have a pretty vocal history right up that alley.


bookrat wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

What attack?

All I did was more evenly distribute the love being shared here.

In a small fraction of the time it took to list just over a dozen types of problem DM's I managed to list almost twice as many classifications of troublesome players. And I did it without even bothering to try and create an exhaustive list.

You also did it without bothering to explain what any of them meant or how to resolve the issues.

He also didn't identify players but forumites.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:


1. Forgot to pay my share for Pizza.

While I would have offered to pay without being asked. If it bothered them so much why not ask. If it's one thign that bothers me it's when something bothers another person yet they don't say anything about it. Expecting a person to read their minds.

CommandoDude wrote:


2. I was not chipping in for snacks.

I can understand if everyone else was and you were not. But if no one else is chipping in for snacks. I don't see why you were singled out.

CommandoDude wrote:


3. Drinking the host's milk.

Well this I think is a mistake on your part. Even if it was ok at first. They did tell you not to drink the milk. Even if I find the new reason somewhat laughable. When I go buy juice if it's game week I tend to buy more than usual in case someone wants some. The milk as well.

CommandoDude wrote:


4. Problem with cursing.

I can understand if a person curses like a sailor. Or has a child in the house. But if all it takes to be offended is one or two curse words. All i can say is I'm not impressed with the "fake innocence". As a child being bothered by swear words I understand. Past 15 years old it's time to grow a pair and/or seek professional help imo. My gaming table either you get over that particular hangup or seek a new game elsewhere. As were not going to put up nor enable anyone who pretends to hide behind fake innocence.

To sum up. I don't think you should have been kicked out. But look at it this way. Now you know what to expect and do it differently at another game table.

This is why thread Necromacy is .... unnatural. BURN IT!


Weslocke wrote:

Here are some suggestions just to get that player thread working.

1)The Gas-Lighter
2)The Rule Lawyer
3)The Mis-Quoter
4)The Partial-Language Parser
5)The Dissembler
6)The Optomizer-In-Denial
7)The "Fun" Tromper
8)The Penny Pincher
9)The "Creative" Crafter
10)The Alpha Optimizer
11)The Unprepared Player
12)The "Unwritten Rules" Hater
13)The Bad Handwriter
14)The Forum Freak
15)The "I know I bought this" Player
16)The RP Hater
17)The "I Only Play One Class" Player
18)The Developer-Rulings-Only Player
19)The Combat Hater
20)The Class-Guide Player (AKA The Color-Code-Cloner)

There, I figure 20 types of troublesome players ought to get the ball rolling.

Discuss!

Looks like YOU have some writing to do to realize your attack. Don't expect others to do your dirty work or you may not like what you get.


Freehold DM wrote:

You defend an establishment with increasing maintenance and administration staff and fees at the cost of those who would actually go into the fields the organization was created to oversee. That's not Blue Collar Woes of the Ivory Tower, it's someone sleeping slapping the snooze button every time the alarm goes off.

The PGA is a far better example than Paizo with respect to the conversation being had here. Poor form including them.

I simply defend pragmatism over delusion. People are expecting to graduate and be handed a tenure job, that's not likely to happen, those have alway been fiercely competitive. People find themselves able to land one course as an adjunct per semester. That is the system working as intended. You are meant to be a professional in your field in combination with that one course, not try to scrap several together to scratch out a wage.

Beating your head against the wall and complaining that that wall doesn't yeild and your head is bleeding doesn't help anyone. You have the highest obtainable education in your field, go work in it.

If you chose poorly you can look in the mirror, but someone mentioned a biology professional earlier and there is simply no reason to not have a job with those credentials.

Edit: on the note about Paizo: some players play the game fairly, but that doesn't make the system perfect. Last I was aware they paid 8cents a word which is still below many other content creation jobs. They also freelance out more work than several full timers could handle because they want to keep the company small.


Freehold DM wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think that misses the point of adjuncting. Adjunct positions are designed for field professionals to teach a class, not to give people a post-doc alternative to scramble together multiple part time jobs and complain about not being able to make it.

There isn't a job there for you, you need to move on. That will also allow people who want to actually adjunct a slot to do it.

The time period where this statement was true has long passed.

Only because a glut of applicants are trying to fill a role never designed for them. Seriously, the sooner these people come to term with the fact that there are no jobs here the better off they'll be. I can tilt at windmills all day long complaining about how hard it is to make it as a professional golfer but all I can find are jobs selling clubs at golfsmith; that isn't the PGA's fault.

I can complain about how hard it is to break into the RPG industry and how freelancers get paid paltry wages by comparison to other content creators, but that doesn't make it Paizo's fault.

As soon as these people figure out that there isn't a job for them the better off they'll be. Until then it is an elitist entitlement expectation. Blue Collar Woes of the Ivory Tower.


I think that misses the point of adjuncting. Adjunct positions are designed for field professionals to teach a class, not to give people a post-doc alternative to scramble together multiple part time jobs and complain about not being able to make it.

There isn't a job there for you, you need to move on. That will also allow people who want to actually adjunct a slot to do it.


Kalindlara wrote:

Oh, I hated Blackboard. And those slides. I'd almost blocked all that out...

My university experience was half great, and half... that. Especially because some classes were only available in seven weeks. Which had mandatory Blackboard.

One of my friends, who worked in the library, had a saying:

"Davenport University: the Q stands for quality!"

Unfortunately, that is what the undergraduate system is becoming.


MMCJawa wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Im torn on the idea of adjuncts and poor pay. Partly, I see it as an entitlement issue and partly I see it as trying to make a part-time job be full-time work.

PhD Adjuncts at my local community college earn $40 per contact hour (page 16) and that includes a mandatory 1 hour of "office hours" per week even if the instructor doesn't have an office and meets with students by arrangement only. So, an instructor teaching a lab class will have 3 contact hours for lecture, 3 for the lab, and 1 office hour. So that's 280 bucks or $1175 a month for teaching a single class. If the instructor were to teach a full load of 12 hours or about $3500 a month. That's with 8 weeks off a year, ultimate flexibility in scheduling, and still only working 20-22 hours a week.

This is particularly notable with automatically graded coursework, use of blackboard to rollover and copy classes. The job is only asking you to present course material in a compelling way and then go home.

If you are having issues making ends meet on a part time gig, then maybe try working full time; also maybe teaching isn't what is best for you and your family and you should look into the practical career of your field of study.

Well as mentioned, there is a substantial amount of variation in what adjuncts make (again, in Laramie it worked out to be $400 a month for a general biology course, while in Northern Michigan I think I worked it out to be somewhere around $600 a month). And something to consider is I don't know anywhere where its just regurgitation and computers correcting material. My friends who adjunct teach are also responsible for creating all their presentation material and quizzes, and none of the classes I taught at any level were simply scantron...grading can stack up quite a bit for essays and such. And those 8 weeks of vacation could also be looked at as 2 months of unemployment.

I don't think adjuncts at community college should be pulling in Salaries equivalent to that of profs at 4 year or...

Pearson and McGraw Hill are universally adopted and provide digital content that the instructor need only select and assign, then the next time they teach that class they don't even have to do that much work because they can just rollover their blackboard class which integrates seamlessly with pearson's "mastering" series and mc graw hill's "learn" series.

Provided to the students behind a paywall naturally. Instructor PowerPoint slides are created to have parity with the courses textbook including the same charts and images.

Scantron tests are always instructor discretion and grading essays is not what it used to be now that "turnitin" is a thing.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Im torn on the idea of adjuncts and poor pay. Partly, I see it as an entitlement issue and partly I see it as trying to make a part-time job be full-time work.

PhD Adjuncts at my local community college earn $40 per contact hour (page 16) and that includes a mandatory 1 hour of "office hours" per week even if the instructor doesn't have an office and meets with students by arrangement only. So, an instructor teaching a lab class will have 3 contact hours for lecture, 3 for the lab, and 1 office hour. So that's 280 bucks or $1175 a month for teaching a single class. If the instructor were to teach a full load of 12 hours or about $3500 a month. That's with 8 weeks off a year, ultimate flexibility in scheduling, and still only working 20-22 hours a week.

This is particularly notable with automatically graded coursework, use of blackboard to rollover and copy classes. The job is only asking you to present course material in a compelling way and then go home.

If you are having issues making ends meet on a part time gig, then maybe try working full time; also maybe teaching isn't what is best for you and your family and you should look into the practical career of your field of study.

That's great except that most colleges, not just community ones are shifting more and more to adjunct, part time professors. Getting full time college teaching positions is getting harder and harder.

And working the lousy adjunct way is the feeder to the rare full time jobs.
I don't know, maybe they should all quit and give up on teaching and that would push the colleges into offering better jobs. Not without an awful lot of disruption though.

That simply isn't the case as universities which want to retain tier 1,2, or 3 research status will continue to need and hire full time faculty to support their publishing effort. The number of jobs is the same as it always has been, it is just that the applicant pool is saturated.

Blue Collar Woes of the Ivory Tower.


MMCJawa wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Or just make college free here to citizens and aliens alike, then you'll massively brain drain the rest of the world as all the smart folks come here.

Germany did something similar recently and I'm sure they're working the same strategy.

Germany is also very selective about who they admit into a regular university type setting. They don't let just anybody get free college. If you don't have the academic chops you don't get to go. Period. No remedial classes for illiterates in German universities. That seems to be an American thing exclusively.

Any halfway-decent school in the US is just as selective.

I mean, sure, any old boob can get into University of Nebraska at Bumf~#+, but you'll probably get about the same level of education as a community college.

I've never heard of classes for illiterates at university though, so you'll have to elucidate me.

I think you are confusing "decent school" with "prestigious school."

On a side note, between the courses that I have taken at Tarrant County College, University of North Texas, TCU, and Rice, the adjunct lecturers at TCC that actually work in their fields and teach at the community college at night were BY FAR the most rigorous/demanding AND most informative instructors.

I am concerned about the heavy handedness of some community college professors. As well as the lackadaisical nature of others. There seems to be little middle ground.
the lackadaiscal nature of adjunct community college teaching is an unfortunate side effect of a job with no job benefits, security, and minimal pay. Some school may pay as little as $400 dollars a month for an instructor to teach a class, which means taking on 4-5 classes a semester just to stay afloat. And unless you have been in the system for a long long time or somehow landed a permanent community college job, there is no guarantee you will get ANY classes...

Im torn on the idea of adjuncts and poor pay. Partly, I see it as an entitlement issue and partly I see it as trying to make a part-time job be full-time work.

PhD Adjuncts at my local community college earn $40 per contact hour (page 16) and that includes a mandatory 1 hour of "office hours" per week even if the instructor doesn't have an office and meets with students by arrangement only. So, an instructor teaching a lab class will have 3 contact hours for lecture, 3 for the lab, and 1 office hour. So that's 280 bucks or $1175 a month for teaching a single class. If the instructor were to teach a full load of 12 hours or about $3500 a month. That's with 8 weeks off a year, ultimate flexibility in scheduling, and still only working 20-22 hours a week.

This is particularly notable with automatically graded coursework, use of blackboard to rollover and copy classes. The job is only asking you to present course material in a compelling way and then go home.

If you are having issues making ends meet on a part time gig, then maybe try working full time; also maybe teaching isn't what is best for you and your family and you should look into the practical career of your field of study.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not seeing multiple readings as possible and accusing people who read the rules differently from you of being a munchkin; accusing people who dare point out rule ambiguity of being treacherous filth with an agenda.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Signing your forum posts.


Haladir wrote:

The meme that grinds my gears most are those that go on and on about DPR and mechanical optimization. Ugh. To me, that's the least interesting part of Pathfinder, and screams WRONGBADFUN!

But the other thing that really grinds my gears is when a poster tells another that the way play the game is WRONGBADFUN.

Catch-22!

My solution this cognitive dissonance is to avoid the Rules and Advice forums as much as humanly possible.

I am probably one of the biggest proponents of DPR on the boards, but I advocate DPR as a method for balancing consideration, not as a method for build exploitation.

I think that people see DPR and don't see the context, just like a bull and a red cape.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

I also tire pretty quickly of being sold on the ideas of e6 or the forge of combat and folks talking about how bad non casters are compared to casters. True or not, the conversation has gotten way old for me personally. I'm not bringing it up to be contrary to orthos's post... simply that orthos's post includes mention of e6 which reminded me of e6 and how I get annoyed at how often it comes up and the reasons why it was created and comes up often.

Thats a trouble I only run into here specifically on the paizo threads though.

I'm sad that we still have to have the conversations about martial/caster issues. I think they they are old too, but I'm not willing to let them go, in the hopes that some day I can play a mundane with story agency granted by the rules and not a benevolent GM.


I'm enjoying the grocery store clear-out of the seasonal "Shiner Cheer." It's Shiner with peach and pecan flavor! Oh my.

Also, there are rumblings that Ruby Red will go year round.


meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Or just make college free here to citizens and aliens alike, then you'll massively brain drain the rest of the world as all the smart folks come here.

Germany did something similar recently and I'm sure they're working the same strategy.

Germany is also very selective about who they admit into a regular university type setting. They don't let just anybody get free college. If you don't have the academic chops you don't get to go. Period. No remedial classes for illiterates in German universities. That seems to be an American thing exclusively.

Any halfway-decent school in the US is just as selective.

I mean, sure, any old boob can get into University of Nebraska at Bumf~#+, but you'll probably get about the same level of education as a community college.

I've never heard of classes for illiterates at university though, so you'll have to elucidate me.

I think you are confusing "decent school" with "prestigious school."

On a side note, between the courses that I have taken at Tarrant County College, University of North Texas, TCU, and Rice, the adjunct lecturers at TCC that actually work in their fields and teach at the community college at night were BY FAR the most rigorous/demanding AND most informative instructors.


In any event, the energy density of crude oil is 46MJ/Kg so it is actually higher than diesel. Also, the engine is most certainly NOT coal.

My mistake in the engine furl itself, the name of the company that makes it has "Diesel engines" in the name and threw me off.


Krensky wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
meatrace wrote:


And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.

You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?

Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?

You think those are large ships, that's cute.

Edit: on a serious note, diesel has almost twice the energy density of coal (45 MJ/Kg ; 24 MJ/Kg) which is actually closer to wood (18MJ/Kg).

Plus steam systems are WAY less efficient. AND coal requires WAY more energy to extract than oil so it is even less efficient from a cost standpoint.

And we finally get down to the end of the issue; peak coal. We simply couldn't produce the amount of coal required to replace oil in the energy market today. Hell, we can barley produce enough oil to to keep up with the demand on oil.

Big cargo ships don't run on diesel. They run on heavy oil, aka bunker fuel. Which has an energy density barely above coal. It actually had a lower density than crude because it's basically the waste from distilling crude.

Also the biggest ships in the world run on steam turbines.

The largest cargo ship afloat today is the CSCL Globe and is powered by a MAN B&W 12S90ME-C, which is most certainly a Diesel engine.


Coriat wrote:
thejeff wrote:

You realize those are small by today's standards, right?

** spoiler omitted **...

Coal certainly would be the goto to staunch the bleeding caused by the loss of oil, but it just isn't long term viable. (Mostly because on top of the other issues brought up, it is so much more dangerous.) What you would really see is a mad dash to develop the electric technology of the next 200 years.

Just because of the state of technology today it would probably be solar electrolysis of water and then either burning hydrogen gas or using a hydrogen fuel cell.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
meatrace wrote:


And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.

You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?

Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?

You think those are large ships, that's cute.

For the 1920s? Or even 1950s?

No, for cargo ships that spurred on globalization.


I ban Monty Python jokes, cold beer, pizza, pretzels, and most forms of brisket.


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
meatrace wrote:


And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.

You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?

Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?

You realize those are small by today's standards, right?

And that oil/diesel is far more efficient than coal? Not in cost, necessarily, but in usable energy per volume and weight.

Sure, you could have done a lot with coal. Even cranes. Maybe coal powered steam trucks to take the containers to their destination? Actually trains would have been the solution for the next stage.

I dunno, maybe you're right. Maybe cheap energy wasn't the driver of the late 20th century economy. Maybe it really was standard shipping containers and if someone had just had that idea 500 years ago, we would have had the same kind of boom without all the carbon pollution.

:-P Coal pollution is so bad that there are scientific papers documenting its effects as evolutionary pressure in London in the 19th century. (Essentially, being a pitch black bird was beneficial in hiding among the soot that literally caked every surface in the city.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
meatrace wrote:


And remember that we were using other kinds of oil, as well as other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) before petroleum as well. In all likelihood, without the oil boom, technology would have simply made use of an alternate fuel source. Not as cheaply, for sure, but still.

You mean, like coal-fired ships, the kind that dominated the oceans for nearly a century prior to the oil boom?

Hint, for those who think oil is necessary for large ships: How do you think the Titanic was powered? Or the Lusitania?

You think those are large ships, that's cute.

Edit: on a serious note, diesel has almost twice the energy density of coal (45 MJ/Kg ; 24 MJ/Kg) which is actually closer to wood (18MJ/Kg).

Plus steam systems are WAY less efficient. AND coal requires WAY more energy to extract than oil so it is even less efficient from a cost standpoint.

And we finally get down to the end of the issue; peak coal. We simply couldn't produce the amount of coal required to replace oil in the energy market today. Hell, we can barley produce enough oil to to keep up with the demand on oil.


Jeff Merola wrote:

First, let's discuss how Detect Magic actually works. First round is presence or absence of magic in the cone. Second round is number of detected auras and the strength of the most powerful one. Third round finally reveals the location of all the auras within the cone, and lets you try to figure out the school of magic with a Knowledge (Arcana). You only get to know a specifics if you're examining a magic item, not a spell effect.

So if the invisible person is standing in the 60' cone for three straight rounds, you can potentially figure out you're looking at some form of Illusion magic, which could be a heck of a lot of things. I have no problem with Detect Magic doing this.

Upon closer reading, the spell says that you must have line of sight on the creature to get the school. Invisibility will certainly prevent you having line of sight. So the most that could be learned is strength (and only if it's the strongest aura) and location, not even school.


Auto-pin-point is maybe over stating the case. It takes 3 rounds of the target standing still and skill check. If the target moves that 3 rounds is reset.

That said, detect magic auto-fails vs glammers and figments in my home game.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
If race shouldn't play a part in entering Prestige Classes, then what about humans for every PrC that requires feats? Don't they get an unfair leg up over other races?

Can you think of a PrC that you can meet all the requirements for at 6th level except for the sheer number of required feats means you must put it off to 7th? ... unless you're human of course.

I can't.

Maybe Loremaster, if you're not a Wizard. Or a Half-Elf. Or a Sorcerer who's taken Skill Focus as one of his Bloodline Feats. Or an Arcanist who's taken Metamagic as one of his Exploits.

And the earliest you can take Loremaster is level 8 anyway, so... yeah, no.

Human isn't "required" for a damn one - everything besides Loremaster has 3 or fewer required feats, plus Skill Ranks and/or BAB and/or minimum spell level that makes it impossible to enter before lv5.

So, it's fair to say then that race isn't playing any part in entry to those PrC's?


Kaouse wrote:
If race shouldn't play a part in entering Prestige Classes, then what about humans for every PrC that requires feats? Don't they get an unfair leg up over other races?

Can you think of a PrC that you can meet all the requirements for at 6th level except for the sheer number of required feats means you must put it off to 7th? ... unless you're human of course.

I can't.


Nicos wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Please note that perception checks while searching for traps IS EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY called out as exactly the kind of thing you can take 20 on.
That settled it.

No problem. I've got it bookmarked because it's a pet peeve of mine AND it seems to come up frequently.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but that's the a house rule. Taking any position not explicitly stated to be the case in the rules is a house rule. House rules aren't (inherently) bad, and everyone uses various house rules. But saying that you can trigger a trap just by looking for it is still a house rule.
I would actually LOVE to continue this with you for a PFS context, but in the context of this thread (PFRPG in general) we can agree to disagree about what's a house rule.
You can disagree all you want, which is probably why the game designers decided to include:
CORE RULE BOOK/ TAKING 20 wrote:
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).

Please note that perception checks while searching for traps IS EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY called out as exactly the kind of thing you can take 20 on.

1 to 50 of 3,222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.