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

CBDunkerson's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 447 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 447 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the status of 'Sites of Interest' from the Thornkeep book in relation to this map? For example, the blog posting mentioned that hex -05,07 is the location of the Emerald Spire and it seems like the various other dungeons and monster lairs can likely be matched up with various monster and monster home hexes. However, will small settlements like the Murdoon and Woodbristle homesteads be in the game? Or individual structures like Oreena's cottage and Alejia's crossing? By the map it looks like all of these except possibly Oreena's would be in NPC hexes. Does that mean that it will be possible to find various NPCs (possibly as quest givers?) in different NPC hexes?

Goblin Squad Member

I've used various virtual tabletops, but they aren't exactly what I was getting at. All of those I have seen are basically tools for making existing pen and paper gaming rules playable in an online environment and/or easier. Instead, I'd like to see a set of gaming rules designed from the ground up to ONLY be playable via computer. Get rid of or extremely limit spells which can't be simulated well on the computer. Go crazy with the complexity of the math if it allows more options and variation. Make it so every combat can be played out in real time like an MMORPG. Et cetera.

Basically, I think tabletop style roleplaying with a GM could be translated to an online environment much better if it stopped following the rules and conventions which developed for pen and paper. This can somewhat be seen in the ways that PFO has changed Pathfinder rules to work better in a computing environment. In theory, once PFO is running a group of players could get together and one of them walk the rest thru an adventure as the 'DM' (e.g. providing dialogue from NPCs and more detailed descriptions of the surroundings). Add the ability for the 'DM' to build the environment and you would then be very close to what I am talking about. Traditional roleplaying with a DM running the scenario, but with all of the game mechanics handled by a computer so they don't bog down the 'roleplaying time' at all.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Cr500cricket wrote:
I wish every belieber in creation would die!

Granted: They WILL all die. Eventually.

I wish I had not wished.

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot, we are talking about 'code' that can control some of your character actions... for example, if it detects that you are at less than half hit-points it automatically casts healing, if you are poisoned it automatically drinks a cure poison potion, if an enemy player enters the same area it automatically attacks, et cetera.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Back in v3.5 my group used Ring gates and Shrink item. Pathfinder added restrictions to ring gates which reduce their usefulness for this, but shrink item is still a ludicrously powerful spell. Forget the Brachiasaurus... just shrink the cargo down to 1/4000th the weight and stick it in your backpack.

Goblin Squad Member

Oh, well... if we are wishing for the Moon... what >I< would really like to see is an RPG program interface designed with the intent to replace pen and paper gaming. So, for example, you'd still have a GM running the scenario and players going through it, but instead of talking and rolling dice to work out the combats you'd just fight them out in the computer game. Minimizes time spent describing the area (players can see it on screen) and running combats... freeing up more time for roleplaying. Of course, you'd want to take advantage of the high speed mathematical capabilities of the computer... so you'd also want to include a complete rewrite of the game rules with that interface in mind.

Could we shoehorn that into PFO? That'd be great. :]

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

Why is that fundamentally different from the disparity that already exists between anti-social players, casual players, and super-organized players?

I actually think it would be cool if a rich, anti-social player wanted to give Goblinworks lots of money to have 30 or 40 "bots" running. It would be similar to a Necromancer's Undead Army.

The fundamental difference is in which group of players and style of play is being favored. As a 'rich' anti-social professional programmer I wouldn't personally object to your vision... but it is NOT what Goblinworks is working towards. They have been very clear about emphasizing the social aspects of the game above all else.

I don't think it is possible to balance a game so that it equally suits all personality types and skill sets, but regardless that isn't the goal Goblinworks is pursuing. PFO is going to be a social game. That's somewhat 'uncomfortable' for an introvert like me, but it still promises to be a great game. Add in automation options and I'd be that much happier... but it WOULD change the game's balance and focus away from social interaction in a big way. Better to stick with the game they've said they are building and the user base which signed on based on that vision.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the old text MUDs didn't have a problem with letting you use triggers, but wouldn't allow logged-in alts, while modern MMOs don't have a problem with logged-in alts but get all bent out of shape about triggers. I really, really wish PFO would allow me to have both...

I don't know. While I've always enjoyed 'programming games' like Crobots, incorporating that kind of thing into RPGs creates massive disparities between the non-programmers, programmers, and good programmers. I played MUDs too, and towards the end I had turned zMUD 'triggers' into a complete programming language which allowed my character to act as a 'bot' which could play on its own and do it better than any human player. That was fun, but it creates a very different game and drives out players who aren't interested or lack the skills to compete.

The usual counter-argument is that you can keep it under control by limiting the functionality available for automation... and sometimes that works. However, it is VERY easy to go a step too far and unknowingly give people the tools to create a full programming language... I did it on Wikipedia several years ago building up from a single binary switch.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not sure that the concept of permanent 'monster hexes' makes a lot of sense. From an out of game perspective it is just odd for 'monster problems' to always crop up in the same spot(s) and to continue doing so long after the surrounding area has become 'peaceful and civilized'... conversely this setup also makes it completely impossible for monsters to move into a 'settlement hex' after a terrible war leaves a city reduced to rubble. In game, I foresee kingdoms 'farming' their monster hexes by deliberately letting them build up to the highest escalation cycle before cleaning them out.

Would it be possible to change the 'monster hex' logic to potentially begin an escalation cycle in any hex which isn't CURRENTLY settled? That plus algorithms which set the likelihood of monster escalation based on the degree to which surrounding hexes have been settled and the mechanic would be more 'organic' overall.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
Bardic knowledge doesn't help the bard eclipse the rogue. That falls firmly in to the "and more" category. Any points thrown into knowledge skills are not being used to do "everything the rogue can".

Errr... self-evidently false. Knowledge skills are within the set 'everything rogues can do'.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Bards can easily be better 'skill monkeys' than Rogues via Bardic Knowledge and Versatile Performance (not to mention Loremaster and Jack of All Trades). There is just no way the Rogue's two extra skill points per level can keep up with the avalanche of skill bonuses provided by these abilities.

Means of offsetting the Rogue's advantages with traps have already been noted.

That basically leaves Rogues with Sneak attack, evasion, uncanny/imp uncanny dodge, and talents as things Bards can't inherently do. Bards can get Rogue talents and evasion from archetypes. Improved uncanny dodge is nice, but really the only major thing Rogues have going for them over Bards is Sneak attack... which I personally consider a very powerful combat option. The prevailing opinion on these boards that Sneak Attack doesn't matter because Rogues cannot hit anything bears no resemblance to my actual game experience.

So no, I don't think a Bard can be built to 'eclipse' (i.e. do everything as well or better than) a Rogue... but only because of Sneak Attack.

Goblin Squad Member

From what I could see, the combat seemed fairly MMO standard except for some of the 'interactive' visual effects that Ryan mentioned would be coming later and the lack of 'circle straffing bunny hop' nonsense... though that could as easily be because the players just didn't DO that as that it was impractical.

Ideally, I'd like to see it be possible for someone to move around in combat as much as they want... but for running and jumping in circles to be just as foolish as it would be in actual combat. If there are 'action point' and/or 'attack of opportunity' mechanics in place to discourage this sort of thing then it should work nicely.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

1: Take any Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Paladin build
2: Remake it as a Rogue (possibly with level dip into other class) as close to the original setup as you can.

In most cases, the Rogue build will be doing more damage than the original when it gets sneak attack.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
gnomersy wrote:
Uh based on my experience and most posts I've read the only way to get that Acrobatics check to guaranteed to work is using custom magic items otherwise it's 75ish% assuming you went dex took skill focus maxed the skill got a +5 competence bonus via an item and bought all the dex boosting gear available at your level. Which means 1/4 of the time you crap out and wind up taking an attack and stand right in front of the monster for next round.

Various favored class options give +1/2 per level to Acrobatics. The 'Acrobatics Master' trick from the Ninja rogue archetype adds +20 to one check per round (with a ki point). There is a +10 elixir. Et cetera.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
The Crusader wrote:

Rogue with 14 Str and 18 Dex - Finesse rapier attack +4 for 1d8 + 2 + 1d6

or

Barbarian with 18 Str - Raging falchion power attack +6 for 2d4 + 12

............

Not even at level 1...

So give the Rogue the 18 Str, the falchion, and power attack.

Sure, if you build a non-combat rogue they aren't going to be good in combat. That isn't a flaw of the class though.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Oi!

Yes, a melee rogue may do limited damage when ranged attacking a melee target in a corner... but limited damage per round beats zero damage per round every time.

Yes, CMD is 'broken' at high levels, but even so Rogues at that level can get their acrobatics checks up to equally ludicrous values any number of ways.

Whatever, some people just need to believe that rogues are rendered helpless by corners. I've always found that it instead renders the monster hiding in the corner irrelevant.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
In my experience, the Rogue is the most dangerous combat class in most situations. They also get the most skill points. Never have understood the 'Rogues are so mis-treated' angst.
Someone has not met monsters near choke points, corners, or walls.

Choke points - Go through their choke point with tumbling. That's what all those skill points are for.

Corners - If they are melee monsters laugh at them while you kill them from range. If not... leave. They can't stop you while they're hiding in the corner.

Walls - Can still be flanked. No problem.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

In my experience, the Rogue is the most dangerous combat class in most situations. They also get the most skill points. Never have understood the 'Rogues are so mis-treated' angst.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Looks like a good change to me. The complaints about 'Crane Wing now being useless' don't hold up to examination IMO.

For full defense the feat hasn't changed at all. If you are in a one on one situation with someone getting a single attack per round you can still go full defense, deflect their single attack, and (with Crane Riposte) get an attack of your own... you get one attack every round and they get none. That would actually still be massively unbalanced EXCEPT that it is unlikely to happen very often given the need for three feats to accomplish it will create little or no window before even single opponents are getting two attacks per round. Even against two attacks this setup would result in the attacker getting one attack against a very high AC and the Crane defender getting one attack against a normal AC... still a clear advantage for Crane Wing. At three or more attacks per round Crane full defense may or may not be advantageous, depending on many other factors.

Fighting defensively obviously got nerfed, but frankly that is entirely appropriate. Otherwise, the Crane 'defender' is getting all of their attacks at -2, plus an extra attack, while their opponent is getting one fewer attack than normal and all attacks at -3. Given that the Crane defender can also choose to deflect their opponents highest attack bonus strike each round it also effectively added an additional -5 to all attacks. That was clearly unbalanced... for ALL levels and nearly all situations. The 'nerfed' form still allows the Crane all attacks at -2 while the attacker makes all at -3 (or -7 for one chosen by the Crane)... and thus still provides a clear advantage to the Crane in nearly all situations... just not as massive an advantage.

There might have been other ways to re-balance the feat (e.g. still allow one deflection on fighting defensively if the attack missed by 10 or more), but it obviously needed adjustment and this update isn't bad overall. Crane style is still very useful, and no longer blatantly unbalancing compared to other melee options.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

It's funny. I've always allowed my players to point buy any starting value between 3 and 18 (before adding racial/age/whatever mods)... and, in decades of GM'ing, I can't recall ever having seen a PC with a stat lower than 8.

Frankly, it seems to me that if you make your character obviously deficient in some way you are all but asking your enemies to use that weakness to take you out. Not to mention that a -2 or more on various skill checks can be lethal all by itself.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Well, you seem to be asking for a DPR Rogue build... but disallowing various things that can be used to do that.

Obviously, the main DPR advantage of Rogues is Sneak Attack. Flanking is the easiest way to get that, but by no means the only. I haven't seen you bar a ranged sniper build yet, so I'd suggest that. There are various ways to 're-engage' ranged stealth after sniping (even if we assume prestige classes and/or multi-classing in general are verbotten) so they can still get their sneak attack damage despite your no flanking restriction. Similarly, strength can help with composite bows, but isn't strictly a requirement with ranged builds like it is on melee. If the char can get a set of Sniper Goggles that would significantly increase both range and damage.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

So many things key off ability scores that ANY way you handle them is going to create illogical situations unless you've got exceptions built in to cover them.

That being said, like many people I find it far easier to treat temporary adjustments the same as permanent adjustments and deal with the conflicts created by that than vice versa.

Thus, I just house ruled away temporary increases being different and the '24 hour waiting period'. Ability changes impact everything immediately... at which point the only conflicts I've seen are with skill points (i.e. PCs shouldn't be able to get a couple ranks in any skill by temporarily boosting their Int), bonus spells per day (i.e. shouldn't temporarily gain or lose spells per day), and pre-requisites for feats and prestige classes (i.e. shouldn't be able to boost ability for a couple of minutes to qualify for a feat). However, each is easily handled with an exception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

What I'd like to see is a cleanup and consistency check across the army, troop, swarm, and 'individual' rules. These methods of simplifying 'groups of individuals' into a single entity for rules purposes have all been great, but each has been invented in isolation from the others, leaving a lot of ground in between the different types not covered.

What happens when a troop fights an army? What is the difference between a troop (or army) of tiny creatures and a swarm? An individual can't grapple a troop, but can an army... and how would that work? Et cetera.

With a bit of work I think these features could be built into the best synthesis of wargaming and roleplaying I have seen. Roleplaying grew out of wargaming, but it has always been difficult to fit the two together. You usually have one set of rules for 'individuals' and another set for 'armies' with poor interconnectivity between the two. The army rules first introduced in the Kingmaker AP are a typical example of that... great for mass combat but not a perfect fit when factoring in individual heroes. However, the troop rules bridge the gap. If each troop could be treated as an army when fighting other armies, but an individual when fighting other individuals then you've got an entity type which functions at both scales.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

While methane release from sources in the Arctic is a serious concern... it should be noted that the article linked in the OP is a year and a half old. Hence the lack of recent coverage in the US... or anywhere.

Thus far methane 'plumes' in the oceans, like those described in the article, have predominantly been dissolving into the water before reaching the surface and therefor not getting into the atmosphere. As the water gets warmer and the plumes bigger there will be increasing amounts leaking into the atmosphere, but it isn't clear when that will happen. Methane release from melting permafrost is a more immediate concern, but atmospheric methane levels have been fairly steady since ~1998 (when we got industrial methane emissions under control). There has been some uptick in the past few years, but not enough to definitively say that we have kicked off a natural methane feedback cycle;

Atmospheric methane level over time

All that being said... yes, we are clearly screwed.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Resurrecting a thread (which had apparently risen once before) to examine a new variation.

In reference to a suggestion of allowing 0-level spells to receive a bonus for having a high stat;

Ravingdork wrote:

Then you break consistency and mess with the underlying math.

Screw that I say.

Actually... I did the underlying math:

Bonus spells per day = (Stat - 2 * (Spell Level + 1)) / 8 [round down]

This formula correctly calculates the bonus spells per day for every stat and spell level combination EXCEPT the 0 level spells. Thus, it would seem that the existing table 'breaks the underlying math'.

Now, the stated reason for the exclusion of 0-level bonus spells is that the formula would allow a bonus 0-level spell for having a high stat starting at a value of 10 (i.e. (10 - 2 * (0 + 1)) / 8 = 1)... which is also the MINIMUM stat value (10 - 10 = 0) you need to cast 0-level spells at all.

However, in many places where math is required throughout the rules, 0-level spells are instead treated as having a value of 0.5. If we plug that assumption into the bonus spells formula we get one bonus 0-level spell starting at a stat value of 11... which is higher than the minimum stat value of 10 (just as the one bonus 1st level spell at 12 stat is one higher than the 11 stat minimum needed for 1st level spells). This would also yield two bonus 0-level spells at 19 stat, three at 27, four at 35, et cetera.

So, a solution which is consistent with the mathematics underlying the table, the intent to have bonus spells only for stat values higher than the minimum amount required to cast spells of that level, and the standard treatment of 0-level spells in calculations. Iz gud?

Goblin Squad Member

On the 'no respec for class' issue... correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the 'class focus' bonus was determined by the abilities you have 'slotted', which you choose from amongst all those you have qualified for.

So, for example, if you start EE as a Wizard with the intent of eventually switching this to a Sorcerer a lot of the things you would be working on should be the same. Sure, you'll probably develop some things which wind up being 'wizard only', but then when the Sorcerer role becomes available you can just swap those out for abilities that DO fit the Sorcerer role and viola! you've got the class focus bonus for Sorcerer.

Thus, the only 'downside' I can see here is the potential for some amount of 'lost' training time... though being in the EE means you're getting 'extra' training time over most players... and other people in the EE will face the same limitations. So maybe there is a time period where an optimized Wizard is ahead of an optimized Sorcerer in power, but the difference shouldn't be huge and will certainly be smaller than if you had to start building the Sorcerer from scratch when the class is released.

If they are successful in constraining the power curve enough to make it viable for OE players to contribute meaningfully alongside EE players then the much smaller gap between EE original class and EE swapped class characters should not be a problem.

Another way of looking at it... the ability to slot different abilities is a form of respec'ing. Slot all your Wizard abilities... hey, you're a Wizard and get the Wizard focus bonus. Slot all your Sorcerer abilities... zounds, you've got the Sorcerer focus bonus! Slot a mix of the two... no focus bonus, but hey maybe you've found some cool synergy between the two classes which is just as good.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

My understanding has always been that the stats in the Bestiary are for an 'average' member of the species. For example, if there were a 'human' entry they would have three 10s and three 11s. Thus, a 15 strength in the Gorilla block would imply that they have a +4 racial strength bonus. Yes, that is still low... but it gives you more room to adjust. Give that Gorilla an 18 base strength, plus the racial bonus and you're up to 22 strength for a particularly strong Gorilla. Much more reasonable.

Pathfinder (like every version of D&D) doesn't do a great job capturing the real abilities of animals in general. The one that always makes me laugh is that Pathfinder bats are all but helpless in the dark (e.g. bugs have total concealment and bats must move at half speed or have a 50% chance of crashing). As such, I usually take the Bestiary stats for animals that are going to be around for a single combat, but make up more realistic values for animals that have a bigger part to play.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They're plenty enforceable. Change technology however you want, people will still be people. If Bob's printing out AK 47s on demand Bob needs to tell someone that he has them in order to find a buyer. Bob needs to sell them to someone that will use them, and when the cops pick one of them up and threaten them with enough jail time they'll turn on Bob in a heartbeat.

While I agree with the general premise that gun laws will cut down on gun violence there ARE some ways in which 3D printing could make it extremely difficult to enforce some TYPES of gun control laws.

For example, what if 3D printing becomes ubiquitous? Everyone has a 3D printer at home and rather than having every type of screwdriver, wrench, cup, plate, dining utensil, shoe, cap, etc 'on hand' they instead just print one out as needed and then reduce it back to its components when no longer required. In such a scenario Bob wouldn't be selling AK 47s... people would just print their own. And only when they actually wanted to shoot. Thus, laws against selling certain types of firearms would be all but obsolete and laws against possessing them would only apply during the comparatively brief time period the gun was actually in existence.

In short, gun laws would need to change. Hence my statement in an earlier post that the focus would likely shift to laws against carrying a concealed gun around. If harsh penalties were applied to that you wouldn't see criminals printing a hand gun and keeping it on them at all times... too easy to get caught with it and sent to jail for years. That would still be a very effective form of gun control because most crimes are spontaneous crimes of opportunity.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
This site provides an overview of voter ID laws on a state-by-state basis.

While your efforts are laudable, several psychological studies have shown that once conspiratorial ideation reaches a certain level it becomes wholly impervious to facts and logic and, indeed, individuals only become MORE certain of the conspiracy when presented with information disproving it.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I suspect that 3D printers will eventually make it possible for most people to create their own guns. At that point laws against owning guns or not registering them effectively become pointless... someone can always just create a gun when they want one and then destroy it afterwards. Thus, the only remaining form of 'gun control' will be controlling when/if a person can carry a gun around with them... which, frankly, ought to be the focus of gun control laws anyway.

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed with a handgun which was concealed on the perpetrator while they were travelling to the crime scene. Carrying a concealed firearm is usually illegal... but the penalties for this crime are so minor that criminals do it all the time anyway. Make the penalty for carrying a concealed firearm 20 years in prison and criminals would NOT carry guns around with them all the time... it'd be like asking the police to send them to prison. That would eliminate spontaneous 'crimes of opportunity'... which are by far the most common.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Laws will never be able to stop or prevent criminals. You want peace, laws are the wrong tree to bark at.

So, in your 'reality' removing all laws against theft would NOT result in a massive increase in theft?

Fascinating.

Goblin Squad Member

The fulfillment tool had the wrong pledge level for me (I checked the pledge shown on the Kickstarter site to make sure I hadn't messed it up myself somehow). Overall not a big deal... since the total pledge amount was right I can just switch my pledge level to the correct item and still get all the add-ons I wanted. However, the pledge level includes a benefit that depends on the order you signed up for it. Do I 'lose my place in line' because of the SNAFU?


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Chris A Jackson wrote:
For those of you still on the fence, there will be a sample chapter posted on the Web Fic page May 1st, and a four chapter "Prequel" story posted in the following weeks.

Aha! I saw the reference to the 'Stargazer' prequel at the end of the book and had been looking all over for it. Thanks for clearing that up.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

BTW, turns out the legislation isn't quite as advertised. Basically, it prevents injunctions stopping the planting of crops once the USDA has given approval. Does not protect against "prosecution" for damages at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

While there is clearly no good reason to be giving corporations special protections against prosecution I've never understood the genetically modified foods freak out. People make all kinds of ridiculous claims about how eating something will modify THEIR genetics and cause them to grow a third eye... which is, of course, idiotic. Humans do not incorporate gene sequences from their food into their own. If they did we'd have noticed a long time ago. How many people have you seen turn into cows after eating too many hamburgers?


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
If it turns out they can only supply 75% of our needs or we need other sources for backup for fluctuating renewables, does that mean we shouldn't have built any? Of course not.

Quite so. If renewable energy could reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels to 50% of their current level that would be enough to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 level and put a 'cap' on how bad global warming will get. That should be a relatively easy goal to attain and would provide tremendous advantages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Right now... renewable can't do it all... because the tech simply isn't there.

Actually, you are a little out of date. Ten years ago renewable power sources couldn't do it all. Today they can.

There have been several studies over the past few years showing affordable ways to cover all power needs via renewable sources at the national, continental, and global levels.

The best of the global studies is probably this one in two parts

Indeed, we have now delayed renewable power so long that not only is it economically feasible... it would actually be cheaper. Solar is already at 'grid parity' with fossil fuel power for over 20% of the global population. By the end of 2015 that will have grown to around 50%, and by 2020 nearly the entire planet. Yes, there are large infrastructure costs involved in changing over from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy economy, but those would be offset by no longer having to pay to prop up the fossil fuel economy.

At this point I don't think the lack of political support for renewable power matters. Private investors have already noticed that wind is profitable in many places and that solar soon will be nearly everywhere. By 2020 I suspect there will have been such a sea change in new power development that it will be obvious to everyone that the fossil fuel era is on its way out.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
KestlerGunner wrote:
There is a lot of good news about the parity in pricing of renewable energy (I highly recommend reneweconomy.com.au for its email bulletin) but there is so little political passion and action behind this game-changing work that it's hard not to get up every morning and scream 'We'll all be rooned!' at the air conditioner.

Actually, at this point I think 'political action' is irrelevant.

If politicians had been merely NEUTRAL on renewable energy for the past thirty years then we'd be at zero atmospheric CO2 growth by now. If there had been active support for renewable power then we'd only be using fossil fuels for a few niche applications by now.

However, it doesn't matter... because, as you note, unsubsidized renewable power is now falling below the cost of highly subsidized fossil fuel power. For obvious reasons it is happening in sunny and windy areas far from major fossil fuel producing areas first, but over 20% of the planet's population already live in areas where renewable power is cheaper and by 2020 (barring some massive unforeseen change) it will be over 95%.

Thus, there is very little which political opposition can do to stop a transition to renewable power at this point. Development by private firms will make it more and more obvious that renewable power just costs less... even without taking health and environmental costs of fossil fuels into account.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
GermanyDM wrote:
I can see how two rogues would be faaaaaar more effective than one, given the flanking possibilities, but so be it. A simple 5-foot-step is generally enough to keep two rogues from doing iterative attacks in the following round.

I've seen this type of claim many times and always find it odd. Why would you need two rogues? In every game I've ever been involved with the rest of the party routinely helps the rogue get flanking.

Ditto the '5 foot step escape'? Targets in the games I have played generally don't even try... because it is just as simple for the rogue and their current 'flanking buddy' to ALSO take 5 foot steps and re-acquire flanking.

My experience with rogues is very different from that described by many people on the boards. Nearly every attack of every round of every combat the rogue is getting sneak attack. Throw in that these rogues are ALWAYS built with high strength and damage based feats and they tend to do much more damage than the actual 'fighter' classes. The classic refrain on the boards is that they can't do as much damage because they miss due to lower BAB... but that is offset by the flanking bonus until level 9 and not enough to offset the sneak attack damage thereafter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Good news: Australia gets enough sunlight that solar is essentially at 'grid parity' with fossil fuels now. You'll easily be able to convert over to less expensive and less polluting power.

Bad news: By the time the world gets carbon emissions under control this past year will just be an average summer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

My strategy is to celebrate the first step towards a sane health care policy in this country. True, we still pay far more for far worse medical care then any other 'modern' country in the world... but at least we're finally heading in the right direction.

Goblin Squad Member

I've always wanted a tool which would allow a traditional tabletop GM to quickly put together an adventure map, place the monsters, and then just hand it over to the players to explore through with the GM providing narration and some interaction.

In such a way you could transform the time spent describing the environment into things which are immediately visible to the players AND the huge time-suck that is tabletop combat into a fast paced video game interface.

The ideal system would be designed to allow computerized gameplay with a diversity of options similar to that available in PnP games. Thus replacing the time consuming portions of PnP with the computerized interface and allowing the storytelling aspects of the game to take the fore. I don't know that PFO will get to that level even if it allows player generated content, but it would be a step in the right direction.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I believe that was a rhetorical question to demonstrate the idiocy of the previously described concept, that would result in the earth being the center of the universe, but would also be the logical follow up to one of a couple fallacies I was pointing out.

And therein lies the problem... because you argued that the Earth would have to be at the center of the universe in order for objects near it to appear to be moving away more slowly than objects far from it. I used the balloon analogy to show why this was false (e.g. as the balloon expands dots on its surface [i.e. NOT THE CENTER] near each other move apart more slowly than dots far apart from each other). Your insistence that the Earth would have to be in the center of the universe to observe this effect is clearly and obviously wrong... yet you continue to state it in your response above without even TRYING to address (or apparently comprehend) the obvious proof that it is false.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
CBDunkerson thinks I think the earth has to be at the center of the universe. How people get these crazy ideas from my words is one thing that really is beyond my understnding.

Oh... allow me to quote someone who may be able to help you understand;

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Are we somehow the center of the universe again?


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

@CBDunkerson

I never said the universe isn't expanding. I said the expansion isn't accelerating.

Alert the Nobel committee, the 2011 physics prize for proving acceleration was awarded in error. :]

If you now understand the expansion of the universe, as your previous comments about red-shifting requiring the Earth to be in the center clearly indicated you did not, then it should be simple to see that measurement of the rate of expansion between dots on opposite sides of the balloon (i.e. galaxies on different sides of the universe) can tell us directly whether the rate is constant or changing over time.

That said, it is difficult to believe you have any interest in really understanding things (as opposed to just believing whatever you want to believe regardless of the evidence) when you routinely ignore the substance of contrary evidence presented to you.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
...points 1 and 3 are not wholly in question as they are natural or can be natural effects...

This may be some kind of linguistic confusion, but "not wholly in question" would seem to indicate that they are partly in question. Are you disputing that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that will cause warming or not?

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
...valcanos for example put out a lot of greenhouse gases.

They really really don't. Decaying plant matter, ocean outgassing, and human industry each put out VASTLY more CO2 than volcanoes every year. If we look at the far distant past then sure, volcanoes have been a major player several times. However, for the last several million years nope, they're insignificant.

See Kerrick 2001 & USGS

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
That leaves point 2, though I am sure we do contribute some, I simply question just how much contribute, and their methods used to measure and compare.

Great. I'll explain how we know that humans are responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 below.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I also question the suppossed idea that the earth has more CO2 then ever before.

No such supposition exists in mainstream climate science. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher than current levels several times in the past. Most recently about 2.5 million years ago.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Someone here earlier mentioned ice cores for example, as a method to see how much CO2 was in the air in the past, but they then use more direct methods to measure current levels of CO2.

Actually, the methods of measuring the CO2 content of air in those two cases are the same... only the SOURCE of the air differs. For current measurements they take air from the atmosphere. For the ice cores they take air from bubbles in the ice.

That said, the fact that air in the current atmosphere has ~100 ppm more CO2 than any of the air trapped in ice going back ~800,000 years is actually the least definitive evidence that humans are responsible for the increase.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Doing that eliminates any estimates or guessing about much CO2 actually gets absorbed by the ice vs how much was in the air.

Sorry, I can't follow this. Please explain the process by which you think CO2 surrounded by ice ceases to exist / become unmeasurable.

In any case, let's talk about the real proof(s) that humans are responsible for rising CO2 levels.

My favorite is the basic math approach. Simple logic dictates that the annual atmospheric increase (AtmInc) in CO2 must be equal to human CO2 emissions (HumEm) plus natural CO2 emissions (NatEm) minus CO2 extracted (Ext)... the amount in minus the amount out equals the increase.

AtmInc = HumEm + NatEm - Ext

We also have good measurements of both human emissions (~30 billion tons per year) and the atmospheric increase (~15 billion tons per year). Note that these values show that;

AtmInc (15) < HumEm (30)

Comparing that finding to the previous formula we can determine that 'NatEm - Ext' must yield a negative value (-15 billion tons in fact) and therefor;

Ext > NatEm

That is, the amount of CO2 extracted from the atmosphere by natural sinks each year is greater than the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources... so 100% of natural CO2 emissions and roughly 50% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed each year. Which leaves the remaining 50% of human emissions as the one and only cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Other proofs that humans are responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase include the fact that atmospheric OXYGEN levels are decreasing in perfect lockstep with the CO2 increases (i.e. the CO2 is coming from oxidized carbon) and that the change in the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 indicates that the added carbon is coming from fossil fuel sources. See also Revelle 1957 (i.e. 56 years ago) for that last bit.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I would also to see actual journals, not these publications that are intended for public consumtion. Of course getting actual journals can be difficult.

Not really. All of this has been 'settled science' (i.e. only disputed by people with little knowledge of the subject) for decades, so there are dozens of journal articles to choose from.

You didn't say anything about my balloon analogy, so I'll assume you now understand how the increased red-shift with distance indicates an expanding universe.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Though I still see lots of evidence for getting warmer, and very little for the cause of why it's getting warmer. Too many times times they go "see this proves it's getting warmer, we say it's because of humans" but they don't show anything to prove it's humans. The only exception I've seen, is some graph that shows the "hockey stick" of greenhouse gases which frankly, I question the accuracy of those reports, because we are useing different measurement methods for the past, then they use for today.

Which part of the attribution of global warming to humans do you dispute?

1: That the atmospheric level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is increasing
2: That humans are responsible for this increase in greenhouse gases
3: That increased atmospheric levels of these gases cause warming

There are multiple indisputable (and hence undisputed by any scientist I know of) lines of evidence for each of these, but I'm not clear on which you think is in question.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
2, even if the scientists were correct, then why would distance from us have any bearing on the speed of the galaxies? They would be simply getting faster, and if all realtime, then how is it those closest to us are the slowest? Are we somehow the center of the universe again?

Inflate a balloon so that it is vaguely spherical and then draw three dots on it with a marker. Place two of the dots near each other and the third on the opposite side. Now inflate the balloon some more and note what happens to the dots.

The two dots near each other will both move away from the center of the balloon by roughly the same amount... but since the vectors from the center of the balloon to the dots are nearly identical the increase in distance between these two dots will be relatively small. Meanwhile, the dot on the opposite side will have also moved the same distance from the center of the balloon, but since this is in the opposite direction it will have moved roughly double that distance from the other two dots.

From this we can see that nearby points move apart more slowly than far separated points... precisely as with the expanding universe. No need for the Earth to be in the center for this phenomena to occur. Indeed, if the Earth WERE in the center then all other points would be moving away from it at the same speed.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:
We sat down one weekend and designed the fastest character we could build by level 20 in 3.5 PnP.

v3.5 had a number of things which would just flat out double movement speed or stack up to the point where you could get up to over 100 mph ('feet per round / 9', gives a pretty good estimate of miles per hour) and/or leap tall buildings in a single bound. Pathfinder has done a better job of capping most of the movement adjustments and making them enhancement bonuses so they don't stack.

Different movement speeds is going to make group travel interesting. Either the party will get split up over long distances or the faster characters will need to slow down to match pace.

As noted, it will also make the faster characters just inherently better at combat unless movement detracts from combat ability in some significant way.

Goblin Squad Member

The solution I'd like to see to this problem would be for movement to take away from attacks. So, the more you move the less frequently you attack. That slow dwarf standing still with his crossbow can continually fire on the hyper-kinetic elf every time he comes within range. Meanwhile the Elf is moving all over the place, but only shooting back half as often. Basically goes back to PnP full attack or move plus single attack.

1 to 50 of 447 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.