I, for one, welcome the revolution.
Bob the Barbarian uses a greatsword (2d6). The avg. damage on a hit is 7. Coincidentally, his damage bonus is +13, for an avg damage, when he hits, of 20. If Bob needs a 1 to hit (we'll ignore auto misses and crits for simplicity), then Bob will do, on avg., 20 pts. of damage each rd. Sometimes he'll do more, sometimes less, but, over time, he will do an average of 20 pts of damage. We'll call this his theoretical avg. damage (Theoretical because achieving 100% of average damage is impossible due to auto miss on a 1).
Bob, however, doesn't hit on a 1, he hits on an 11. In any given round Bob has an equal chance to hit or miss. Over the course of a long battle, Bob will hit as many times as he misses. Since he has a 50/50 chance of doing either 20 or 0, his avg. damage over the course of a few battles will be 10 (.5 times theoretical avg. damage of 20).
If Bob gets a +1 to hit, he will now hit 55% of the time. His avg. damage will now increase to 11 (.55 times 20), or an additional 5% of his theoretical average damage.
If Bob gets another +1 to hit, he will now hit 60% of the time and deal an average 12 pts. of damage.
As long as Bob needs more than a 2 to hit, and less than a natural 20, each +1 to hit does, in fact, increase the damage by 5% of his theoretical average damage. Whether that doubles his chance to hit (as in going from 20 to 19-20) or doubles his average damage (again, going from 20 to 19-20), or any other target numbers, is totally irrelevant.
When deciding whom to buff the answer is simple: Buff the person who does the most damage, regardless of his/her/its To Hit number, as long as that person/creature/object hits on more than 3 and less than a natural 20.
Matthew Morris wrote:
The Berserkers are a detached element that gets to go on the interesting missions. The Berserkers are the PCs!
Care to make any guesses on who the new guys are? I assume that they're opponents of the Fishheads, so, beyond that?
Marik Whiterose wrote:
The civilians elected a leader. The military said, "No. Choose someone else." How is that not exercising a veto?
wicked cool wrote:
This topic went off the rails. Its too bad.
As the OP, I'm actually okay with it. I like it when conversations veer off course. You never know where you're going to end up.
That being said, Tera Nova was another example of this inexplicable yearning for military authoritarianism (which I will hereafter refer to as "Fascism"). Physical torture, indefinite detention, forced drugging, absolute military control, mental abuse, complete and total absence of civilian oversight. And those were the "good guys."
Wait...what?!!! There was a Star-gate beneath NYC?
How many damned Star-gates were there on Earth???
1) It's military science fiction. What do you want?
Actually, I'm a big fan of military SF. Since when does military SF = cheer leading for a military coup?
Sorry, got my generals confused. That should have been: Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler and the "Business Coup."
<Trying not to rant>
I could list all the various individual reasons why I despise this particular trope so much (lazy writing, insulting to veterans, a rejection of the very principles that Western Democracy is built on, just plain factually wrong, etc., etc., ad infinitum), but it really comes down to this: It's dangerous. Memes matter. If you tell people enough times that military dictatorships are where you turn in times of crisis, then, eventually, they'll believe you.
On a related note, look up Marine Corps General "Chesty" Puller to see how closely we've come to losing our (in the U.S.) democracy in the not-so-distant past.
Ryu Kaijitsu wrote:
"Dude, your dagger sheath is rattling. Tighten that up before you get us killed!"
And with my hairline, those are a rare and precious commodity....
X-Files during run: "Of course we know where we're going. The whole series is building towards it. Keep watching. It will be great!"
X-Files after run: "Nah, we were just making it up as we went along."
Lost during run: "Of course we know where we're going. The whole series is building towards it. Keep watching. It will be great!"
Lost after run: "Nah, we were just making it up as we went along."
Battle Star Galactica during run: "Of course we know where we're going. The whole series is building towards it. Keep watching. It will be great!"
BSG after run: "Nah, we were just making it up as we went along."
Prometheus: "Of course we know where we're going. The whole series is building towards it. Keep watching. It will be great!"
Nope, not buying it. Get back to me when you actually have a story.
A Man In Black wrote:
One of the problems I have with "theoretical" optimizers is that they seem to always begin the discussion by trying to slip in an inappropriate assumption. Defeating a challenge of a CR equal to a character's level is not an appropriate challenge. Defeating a challenge of a CR equal to a character's level minus one is an appropriate challenge.
The Maths: Four fifth level characters (CR 5 each) have an APL of 5. Four CR 5 creatures (one per PC) is an encounter of CR 9, or APL +4. An "Epic" encounter is only APL +3. Four fifth level characters (CR 5 each, APL 5) should face a maximum of four CR4 creatures (for a CR 8 encounter, or APL +3). For a PC to be considered "effective," it must be viable against a maximum (in a 1 on 1 encounter) of it's own CR (-1). Any more is applying a standard that is simply not supported by the RAW of the game.
TL;DR: An appropriate challenge, by the RAW, for a character of level X is a CR of X-1.
As for "DMs that don't pull punches", well, that's just childish and, I suspect, deliberately meant to be insulting. If you want to know why optimizers get a bad rap, this is it: The attitude that if optimizing isn't necessary in a particular game, then that game is "easy mode." The exact opposite is true. Taking out a level appropriate challenge with over optimized characters is easy. Dealing with the same challenge with non-optimized characters is far more difficult. And, I would add, much more fun and rewarding.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
That's a fair point. I'd probably move the "direct attention" up a few levels, tho. At 12th, I'd assume that a lesser servant of the god would be serving as a "filter", automatically approving most requests, but passing "up the change of command" any questionable requests.
Unless a player, or GM, has a problem with the use of divine magics on members of a different faith, then I don't see there being much of an issue with using the same magics on a Golarion atheist, certainly not if doing so furthers the plans of the god, church, or cleric. Just being able to pay for the cost of a high level spell, such as rez, would probably be sufficient for most religions.
Basically, I think of it as a non-issue. An interesting RP component, but little more.
The writers would beg to differ:
Guide to Absalom, p14. wrote:
I would also add that, since the "gods" of Golarion are not omniscient, imho, it would be up to the cleric [et al] to decide whether to wield the power granted to them to heal or otherwise aid a Golarion atheist, up to, and including, rez.
Edit: also, Smurf.
Allowing the "readied" action to be "brace against charge" does allow for the iconic scene of the warrior waiting until the last minute to set his/her weapon against a charging opponent. I think the movie "Pathfinder" was the most recent example I can remember (against a bear, IIRC).
By RAW, however, I agree that it can't be done. I'd probably allow it, however.
@StreamoftheSky: Profession: Soldier make a convenient substitute for that sort of roll (as well as making the skill more useful). I also allow the skill to be used to "evaluate" the quality of opposing troops.
Why, "Thank You!" I call it, "St. Cyr's Convenient Cloth." It comes with a lead lined (very small) box for when "you absolutely, positively, don't want to be noticed." I also made it "use" activated. It's a little more expensive, but without a command word, I reason that it's less likely to draw attention.
In my HB setting, the local assassins guild sells (secretly, and at a discount), a lesser version that has only the Prestidigitation effect. They want plenty of them in circulation so that the more powerful version will attract less attention.
Here's a link to the (only) other thing I'm really proud of (PF-wise, I mean).
This is one of the standard "non-standard" magic items available in my game. I make it a polishing rag, however, and add in a Prestidigitation effect so that you can clean your stuff at the same time....
Construction of the sentence aside, anyone arguing "realism" has to contend with the fact that there is simply no way that 5 arrows could be held, much less dispensed, in the manner described. Here's a test: Take 5 dow rods between 2-3'. Tape them to the underside of one's arm (without extending past the wrist). Put on a long sleeve shirt. Now try to use that arm around the house for an hour.
If one can accept that holding/dispensing 5 arrows is an acceptable usage of a wrist sheath, despite the enormous impracticality of it (I would say, "impossibility"), then a scroll isn't much of a stretch, material properties of "parchment" aside.
"Aside" seems to be my word for the day.
On another aside, if realism is the argument, what exactly does one do with the 5 arrows? Noching one is a free action, but then one has to either hold the other 4 in the hand that holds the bow, or the hand that draws the string. The hand that holds the bow now has about twice the circumference to deal with. The hand that draws the string is easier, but try to noch one of the remaining arrows (actual arrows work best for this demonstration so that one has to deal with the fletching). Good luck.
Tons of impractical, improbably, and impossible items and actions are "hand waved" in RPG's. Getting hung up on the technicalities rarely enhances the gaming experience.
@OP: Measuring hp damage dealt works primarily for measuring the effectiveness of martial characters, but that being said, yes, you're absolutely correct.
If an individual PC can regularly defeat creatures of a CR equal to the character's CR-1, then that PC is certainly viable. For example, if a 5th level monk can regularly solo CR4 encounters, then that monk is viable in regards to combat.
If an individual PC can deliver 25% of the damage needed to defeat a BBEG (assuming APL+3), then that character, again, is viable. Given that a single BBEG has a different actin economy than multiple smaller baddies, I would argue that being able to deliver 20% of the damage needed to defeat it would mean that the PC is pulling his/her weight. For example, if the same character as above is capable of doing 20-25% of the damage needed to defeat a CR8 baddie on his/her own, then that character is more than powerful enough to be considered viable.
Measuring the effectiveness of Buffers and Controllers is more difficult.
Having help in determining the quality of a disguise is a textbook example of Aid Another. Taking additional time to get it "just right" is certainly sufficient to warrant a circumstance bonus. "Taking 20" is a handy rule for speeding game play, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to "game the system."
The problem with the whole, "Oh Noes! He gets 1.5 + 0.5 = unfair!" is that it ignores the 2 feat requirement/opportunity cost. You might as well say that a character with Weapon Focus and Power Attack has an unfair advantage.
Edit: Gang Ninja'd
Edit2: Oh how I wish a Dev would weigh in and settle this one.
The girl pretending that she thought she could get back home seems more a part of her cover. "Hey, can I come live with you?" is more suspicious than, "Take me back home! Oh, you can't? Well, can I stay with you instead?"
Wasn't it established earlier that electronic messages could pass through the portal, while physical materials couldn't (ala StarGate)? Every time the portal is opened, messages can flow back and forth.
What puzzles me is why "meteoric iron ore" is such a hot commodity. Tons of it could be pushed through the portal in less than a minute.
So you don't disagree that it is a fallacy, just that it is a logical fallacy?
The double negative is a wee bit confusing, but I believe the answer is "Yes." It is not true that being an optimizer guarantees that one is a poor roleplayer. It is also not true that the "Stormwind Fallacy" is actually a Logical Fallacy.
I will add this caveat/nuance: I believe players who prefer the mechanical aspects of the game, i.e. optimizers tend to be less interested in RPing (and therefore not quite as good at it). I also believe that players who are more interested in RPing tend to be less interested in game mechanics (and therefore not quite as proficient with them). Neither statement in any way discounts the presence of outliers who are proficient in or enjoy both aspects of the game (or who stink at both, for that matter).
I do not believe that the previous statement should be controversial in the slightest. What I do find controversial (well, to be honest, offensive) is the attempt to conceal what is clearly an entirely subjective opinion behind a false veneer of Logic. It is a cheap debating tactic that demeans the debater, the debate, and Logic itself.
@Tark: Send me the cash and the PDFs. I'll send you the Larva.
That's what's important to you. What's important to me (and should be important to anyone who cares about the study of Logic) is that posters don't try to justify their personal opinions and prejudices by hiding behind and misrepresenting Logic. Every aspect of the "Stormwind Fallacy" is subjective; there is absolutely nothing objective about any aspect of it. It consists of nothing but opinion. Those opinions can be right, they can be wrong, they can even be patently ridiculous. What they cannot be is a violation of the rules of Logic, i.e. a Logical Fallacy.
Also, TarkXT, I'm going to need some of your financial info as I believe that child support may shortly be an issue.
I, for one, would like to thank you for the...interesting...evening. I'd have left more than spare change on the bed stand, but, the economy, and all that.
I am, in fact, saying it is not.
Whether one believes that optimization has any effect on role playing performance is an opinion, no matter how the question is phrased. It may be an informed opinion, an ignorant opinion, a biased opinion, or even an honest opinion, but it is still just an opinion based entirely on subjective parameters. What it is not is a Logical Fallacy.