Mynameisjake's page

@Gauss: We will just have to agree to disagree. If I may offer a piece of advice, however, stay away from poker tables. Unless it's mine, of course, then just be sure to bring lots of extra money. ;)

None of which is particularly relevant. It is the average damage over time that matters, not the effect on a single data point.

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.

+1 = +5% Damage is a perfectly accurate statement. It refers to average damage done, not damage in any particular scenario.

One of the Devs weighed in on this in a thread of mine (I think it was mine), but I don't have time to look it up. How is your Search-Fu?

A weapon cord would probably be your best bet.

And he is still the President, just not the leader of the majority party (think President and Speaker of the House).

No, I'm pretty sure he's just out....

Colin Cunningham, Ryan Robins and Lucianna Carro are all sci-fi alumn with long recurring characters. (Maj Davis from Stargate, Henrey Foss from Sanctuary and Kat from BSG.) I was wondering if putting them all in the Berserkers was meant as an injoke.

Kind of like with the remake of V, if I recognized an actor from a sci-fi show, they turned out to be an alien. (Laura Vanderoot, Morena Baccarin, Jane Badler (of course) Rekha Sharma, Lexa Doig, Alan Tudyk, etc)

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?

Really? When did that happen? All I remember President Locke saying was that they insisted he step down from being majority leader and him offering the position to Tom. I don't remember anything about a veto clause.

The civilians elected a leader. The military said, "No. Choose someone else." How is that not exercising a veto?

Though Brad Kelly my theory that the Berserker's casting was an in joke.

?

So, civilians are technically back in charge, but the military gets to veto the leadership. Not really seeing how that's any better.

Still, more aliens.... Hard to go wrong with more aliens....

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."

I don't recall civilians being free to swan through the star gate without the military dictatorship's consent. Frankly I would have loved the idea that a bunch of homeless people discover the Star-gate beneath New York City...

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?

2) General "Chesty" Puller and losing our democracy? A quick search didn't come up with anything relevant.

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.

Ya know, I can't remember the last time I saw a SF show that didn't posit military dictatorship as the answer to every problem.

Yea! Go Fascism! The cure for what ails ya!

Sneaking... unsure, doesn't seem plausible at first, but then again I can imagine something comical like how someone moves together with the others and uses a bush or barrel to hide in/behind

"Dude, your dagger sheath is rattling. Tighten that up before you get us killed!"

Thanks for the Magus!

Knowing where you're going and having to adapt to changing circumstances is one thing. Pretending you know where you're going in order to get others to follow you is something else again.

And it's so good (*rolleyes*) it happened twice in this movie (storm, ship). I lost a few strands of hair myself.

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.

And also, the
** spoiler omitted **
was stupendously, ludicrously, stupid. Wow, that was dumb.

God, I am so tired of that trope. Seems like it's in every movie ever made. Makes me want to pull my hair out.

...I don't require a movie to answer every single question....

Me, neither. But I would prefer one that answered a question. Not even a particular question. Just any question at all.

For a quarter of a billion dollars, you'd of thought they could have got the lead actor a better wig....

One of the tools for figuring out roughly where a class is balance-wise are Same Game Tests. Under these tests, optimized examples of a class are expected to be able to handle challenges - including some non-combat challenges - of CR equal to their level approximately 50% of the time.

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.

I've always thought that Opening Volley would be a great feat for a low level magus. Unlimited Acid Splash + weapon attack for the win.

I'll give you they're not omniscient. It's also pretty common to keep an eye on your more powerful clergy and 12th level is starting to get up there. You're well beyond the norm at that point. You're at the point of "a couple of us could flatten a moderate sized city, so we might be worth keeping an eye on"

I also submit that if you're getting powers from them means you hiding from them is going to be difficult.

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.

Also, Smurf.

Atheism is defined by a strict disbelief in any divine being. If your 'atheist' acknowledges the existence of the divine, then he is by definition not an atheist.

The writers would beg to differ:

The district guard is known as the Graycloaks, a unit
drawn exclusively from declared nonbelievers who
reject the divine authority of any god. Though most
Graycloaks admit gods exist and clearly have power, they
do not accept that these beings are anything more than
unusually powerful angels or genies or are in any way
worthy of worship.

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.

I was under the impression that a Golarion atheist believes that powerful creatures that call themselves "gods", do in fact exist, but that the atheist simply doesn't believe that they are worthy of worship.

There's a feat that allows you to "knock back" a target 5'. Using this with a pole arm and combat reflexes is a good combination and prevents the 5' dance.

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.

That is brilliant! ^.^

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).

An at-will rod (or similar item) of magic aura would do it. Magic Aura lasts 1 day/level, so you could touch all your magic items with it each day and hide their auras. It would cost 1,800 gp to have it at-will as a standard action. Of course, it's limited to 5 lb./level items, so if you wanted to conceal heavier stuff like your armor, you might need one at a higher caster level (just increase the cost by 1,800 gp per additional 5 lb., and the caster level by +1).

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....

Well the forearm-length isn't related to arrows or crossbow bolts, due to the construction of the sentence.

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.

"The sheath can hold one forearm-length item such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts"

Those are some short arrows....

@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."

First, welcome!

Second, I'm not very experienced with them myself, but I think that there is a section on the forums dealing with "PbP" or "Play by Post." You'd probably get better answers in that subforum.

There was a spell for 3.x in Dragon mag. that did what you're looking for. Might take some effort to find it, tho.

It's easy to misinterpret the amount of water a person can create with create water, actually. Easy enough that, in hindsight, we should have made the spell a 1st or 2nd level spell, not an at-will cantrip for sure.

Please don't.

Terra Nova: Welcome to Paradise! Now do what the man with the gun tells you to do, or we'll torture and kill you.

After the past 2-3 episodes, this show should be called, Fascism: The Early Years.

You don't have to be faster than the Zombies, just faster than one of your friends....

Also, did the same thing happen in the comic?

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.

Call it what term you wish. What it is and what's important is that it's truth.

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.

rat_ bastard wrote:

That if you build your character in a manner not proscribed by one of the writers of the optimizing guides then the writer of said guide will appear at the foot of your bed and stare at you all night long with his cold dead eyes.

As a writer of one of the guides I can assure you this does not happen.

In reality I appear next to you in bed. Under the sheets.

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.

Mynameisjake wrote:

That the "Stormwind Fallacy" is an actual logical fallacy.

You saying it's not?

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.

So why do you think "Dad", didn't tell the commander about the whole, "enemies back home/we're being blackmailed" thing?

Mynameisjake wrote:

That the "Stormwind Fallacy" is an actual logical fallacy.

Don't take my name in vain!

Pistols at dawn, Blasphemer!