The 8th Dwarf wrote:
So is that a reasoned assessment of the official PF ruleset? Or is it a general statement about all RPGs? Or at least all D&D variants, including 3pp?
I believe they didn't actually make new measurements, they used existing data from old studies.
In this study we used the data on the secular slowing of simple reaction time described in a meta-analysis of 14 age-matched studies from Western countries conducted between 1884 and 2004
I have to say, Book of the New Sun is one of those classic greats of science fiction that I never really got into. I read SotT long ago and wasn't inspired to read the rest. Finally got around to them a couple years ago and it just confirmed my first impressions.
Erick Wilson wrote:
How would that interact with the current tier system? Would each scenario have 6 versions? (low tier-easy, low-normal, low-hard, high-easy, high-normal, high-hard) What would be the difference between a low-hard and a high-normal setting?Or just the 3, so you could only play it with a character of a narrower level range, but got to choose your difficulty?
The first is a lot more work for each scenario. The second means less scenarios available for a character of a given level.
Yeah. I was thinking more of the combat monster (caster or martial) who's just trying to make sure he's got something to contribute when not killing things.
If you get 8 skill points dumping int isn't a big deal. If you've got 2, or even 4, it's a different story. Especially if you're not human.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
What do you spend that 4-5 hours doing? How many combats? Even in the very large dungeon compounds, unless there are large empty areas or long stretches between areas, you're going to be getting burning resources faster than daylight.Even 15 minutes is 150 rounds. Very few groups could sustain 150 rounds of combat against anything more than chaff. So obviously the vast majority of your adventuring time has to be non-combat.
Event based adventures work, especially if the combat encounters can be interspersed with roleplaying, rather than just waiting around. Wilderness adventures work, since you'll spend most of your adventuring time traveling.
Of course, if you want to have any job outside of combat you're probably going to want skills. If you want skills, you probably don't want to dump Int. If you ever want to interact with any NPCs, you probably don't want to dump Cha.
As long as it's openly metagame, I'm more cool with it.
Still, I'm not really sure resting after a serious fight is all that metagame. It doesn't usually happen in real life but that's more because we don't get per day abilities. If I get in a fight with a bear in the woods, I'm not going to rest there over night. I'm going to get out of the woods and to a hospital. Or lie there and call for help. :)
"2 hours of adventuring"? The problem with the 15-minute adventuring day is that it's pretty much built in to the game. You can't run an 8 hour adventuring day unless most of it is travel time. You might spend that time travelling to the dungeon, exploring it and going back. You're not going to spend it exploring any reasonable dungeon. Not without resting. Even 2 hours is 1200 rounds. If you play through 5-6 combat encounters with a few minutes of searching and bandaging between them, you probably haven't taken an hour and you're probably running low on resources. If the combats are easier, you'll get through a few more, but you'll probably do it faster.
I really can't imagine an 8 hour adventuring day, unless it's 95% unadventful travel. How many sessions would it take to play out?
Though that example seems problematic to me.
The one thing that anyone who knows anything about a cockatrice will know is that they turn people to stone, but you don't get to know that without a +10?
I think I said earlier, there could be all sorts of reasons why the correlation wouldn't hold across historical studies. The old methodology could be bad. There could be other reasons why reaction times have slowed, though most of those could be controlled for, without having to use actual Victorians.
For example: If it's the sedentary or the "plugged in" nature of modern life, then you could compare modern groups who are more or less sedentary/plugged in. If the more group tests better on intelligence, but worse on reaction time, then you confirm that.
Yes. This isn't a new thing. This paper isn't proposing the link between reaction time and intelligence.
The Wiki page is a starting point.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
See above. The Jeff maintains that it's somehow species-specific, but I remain unconvinced, insofar without a mechanism we have no way of drawing that line. Does it work for chimps and humans, but not cats? Housecats and mountain lions, but not dogs? At what point of divergence does this hypothetical species delinator kick in?Really all I know about this is that there is a claim of a correlation between these two things:
Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition.
Assuming that this would be the only factor and that animals with much smaller and simple brains must be smarter than us if their reaction time is quicker is just mind-boggling to me. Of course brain size and structure dominate. But within a species, where the brains are similar, this effect could be noticable. I'm no expert, but this seems obvious to me.
No, of course not. No one has claimed that.
Nor is there a claim that reaction time is intelligence, just that there is a correlation between simple reaction time tests and measures of intelligence in humans. Theoretically based on faster brain processing times.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The article does link the abstract. I didn't really pay a lot of attention to the Daily Caller write up.
Just going by that, I'd assume their suggested mechanism is the weakest part of the paper. It's a possible explanation, but not something their study was designed to test.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Really? And you expect all this in the abstract? In a form understandable by lay people? Or in a news article about it?Or have you read the actual paper and found it to be missing these things?
Just from my reading of the abstract, I think the claim of this paper is only the first.
As for the 3 things you expect, assuming the Data actually show something and the methodology holds up, you don't get to reject that just because it can't be explained yet.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Agreed. If I was actually reviewing that study for peer review, I'd look at it more closely. Like actually reading the study itself :)
OTOH, I wouldn't expect the abstract to defend that correlation. The paper itself should, probably by referencing the literature where it's been studied in the past.
It's just one of those studies that's easy to mock, but there may be more there than there seems at first glance.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
1. I said nothing about causation.
2. It depends on how strong the correlation is and how broadly distributed across subgroups it is. If the correlation has only been studied in recent years, of course, then it may not have held in the same way in the past. They could have been faster without being smarter.
3. Among cats, the correlation may well hold. Smarter cats may react faster. That doesn't mean that a fast cat will be smarter than a slow human. The processing speed may be there, but the rest of the infrastructure isn't.
Then your analogy makes even less sense, though it stays amusing.
Because that's what the study is claiming. They're not "completely redefining the trait being measured", they're using something known to correlate with the trait.
Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition.
And they're doing so, I assume, because we have reaction studies from the Victorian period, but not worthwhile intelligence ones.
I'm not so sure about this. It sounds stupid on the face of it, but if there is work linking reaction time to stimula to intelligence, which the abstract claimes, then there may be something to it.
Obviously, this probably doesn't correlate across species, so the cat's reaction time is irrelevant.
And if you can show that BMI correlates to intelligence, then it might be worth using it as a proxy for intelligence, since it's so much easier to measure. Without that, it's worthless of course.
Yeah, I kind of get that's the theory, I just can't see how it works. At least without some metagame assumption that you won't use random encounters if they keep pushing on long enough to make you happy.
I much prefer reactive settings to random encounters as a way to set the pace. I'd rather have the party worrying about what the inhabitants of the dungeon are doing to refortify or seek them out while they're resting, than about something unrelated wandering upon them in the night.
If there's always a good chance something dangerous will hit them while they're resting, then they won't dare even use up resources in the serious encounters where they're supposed to. After all, even after 5 or 6 encounters and then beating the epic BBEG fight, you could roll a couple APL+ encounters while trying to rest.
Is the thought process really supposed to be: We fought a couple of fights, were low on spells, so rested and got smeared by some randoms in the night. Obviously we need to use up less in each fight, but then do more fights so we're still just as used up when we get attacked in the middle of the night?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
A better response:"If Paizo moves to PF 2, then Paizo stops making stuff for PF 1. I like getting more stuff for PF 1. Therefore, I do not want Paizo to make PF 2."
While I dont know if they actually need to be 'random' I think non set peice encounters are an important part of the game. First and foremost not every encounter can be something dms spend hours planning. That just isnt a rational use of a dm's time. Sometimes you just need to pop a few monsters in a clearing and let the party go at it. Its important in fact to do this given the expections of 3-4 encounters a day. If the party starts retreating after 2 encounters every day to rest, its time to park a few 'random' encounters their way to keep their resources appropriately taxed for the day.
This argument always bothers me.
If the party feels their weakened enough after 2 encounters that they need to rest, but finds when they do so they're threatened by a couple more encounters, why is the expected reaction to push on farther so that they're even more weakened when they retreat to rest? Shouldn't they be saving even more resources for the now expected randam encounters?
Bill Dunn wrote:
But a lot of the point of Smallville (and Lois & Clark, I believe) is that it wasn't billed as a Superman!!! show.
And, in this case, it's not so much that he spent a lot of time without the armor being clever and accomplishing stuff anyway. It's that even in the climatic scenes, which were all about the big armor battles, it still wasn't "Tony in the Armor doing great superhero deeds".
Agent Dee wrote:
Irrelevant, really.Barring something truly major, there is absolutely no chance of a conviction before 2014 and only after if the Senate has a major swing in the mid-terms. Don't worry about President Biden. (Though there's an outside chance he could run and win in 2016.)
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the House voted on and even passed articles of impeachment, if they can get any traction with any of these charges. And not just the stupid ones. It's a political calculation. If they did hold such a vote, many Republicans who voted against it would face primary challengers attacking them for it. There's been so much energy invested in painting Obama as illegitimate, corrupt and un-American that a good chunk of the Base wouldn't accept anything else.
Not every random encounter has to be a fight. Especially those way out of CR range ones.
If you roll up a dragon for a low level party, they can just see him flying overhead. They don't even have to run away, just don't try to draw it's attention.
They get a bit of "There's dangerous stuff out there", without taking up much time or resources.
And there's a big difference between the government banning you painting your house flamingo pink and your neighbors shunning you (and maybe your business) if you paint your house flamingo pink.
Or, to go back to the business at hand, between the government forcing Rush Limbaugh off the air because he's an offensive a!+##$# and people complaining to his advertisers and him losing revenue because he's an offensive a!~#&+$.
I've got say, that would be an awesome adventure.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It's a silly comparison. The two cases are so completely different it doesn't even make sense.
The Pentagon Papers was a release of essentially political information the public needed to know to understand the war that had been kept secret by the government. It was a huge embarrassment for the government and changed the politics of the day. Classic whistleblowing, in spirit in not in law. And it was known who did it. Anything Nixon did in response was done in retaliation.
This was the about the release of information that jeopardized an ongoing investigation, not for political purposes or to reveal government corruption or wrongdoing, but just as a regular news scoop. Nor had anyone taken credit for the leak, so finding out who did it might be critical to preventing further leaks.
That said, the Obama administration has been very harsh on leaks and whistleblowing, but I'd point more at the treatment of Manning and possibly of Assange than at this scandal
NPC Dave wrote:
Firing people? You mean like Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner and Joseph Grant, commissioner of the agency's tax-exempt and government entities division?Technically they resigned, but at that level that's pretty much how it works. Or does Obama really have to hold a press conference and say "You're Fired" for it to count?
Or should he have fired them before the audit and investigation was done? "Oh there are rumors of scandal, fire someone!!!"
I do agree that this is going to hurt, mostly because people already dislike the IRS and are willing to believe bad things about it.
As much as I'm amused by Cordwainer Bird, the name also always reminds me of Cordwainer Smith. Who was absolutely brilliant and unlike anything else in SF.
But, yes, Harlan has his brilliant moments as well. Both in his fiction and his essays.
Or my censors.
It just goes to show how thoroughly even we are indoctrinated. Whatever you make, you earn. And that's how much you're worth.
Unless of course you're poor. Or union. Or government. In which case you don't really earn that much. You just steal it from real hard-working Americans.
Ah yes, that's what I was looking for.
I'd still like to see a breakdown on numbers, but I think that goes a long way to show that it wasn't politically motivated.
I'd still like to see a more detailed breakdown on groups selected for the special processing and on the ones the auditor didn't find sufficient documentation for.
Of course, chances are slim this bit of evidence will hit the pundit circuit, the main news shows or come up in the Issa's committee hearing.
Sadly I can see the holes left wide open already.
Because you specify, no modifiers and no stealth use for both Notices, this doesn't address the question of whether any modifiers, including stealth apply to the Notice DC.
It also doesn't address the question of a pinpoint DC that isn't based on Stealth.
It's really hard to come up with concise questions that nail down what we really want to know.
I'm hoping Wraithstrike is right and they already plan to address this.
Again from that same article:The Table under Spot Check DCs
<Reformatted to hopefully make readable here>
Invisible Thing Notice DC Locate DC
Active Creature 20 40
Living Creature 30 50
Inanimate Object 40 60
Obviously PF only has immobile and active. And doesn't allow notice on non-active, while 3.5 made it harder. Nor does the 30 DC for holding still match the +40 for not moving.
The DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.
At this point I was ignoring stealth and working with either my or Wraithstrike's approach, which without stealth and within 30' give the same DC for Pinpointing.Let's say an invisible creature, moving less than half speed, not using stealth within 10'. So there are no speed, distance or other modifiers from the table.
DC 20 to notice. +20 to Pinpoint = DC 40 to Pinpoint.
I think you would have the Pinpoint DC the same as the Notice if he's not using Stealth? Or 2 higher in your example, since you only count Distance for Pinpoint not notice?
We do agree on how the checks work. One reactive check can get both. You can use an active one to retry if you have reason. We just don't calculate the DCs the same way.
Yay! We agree.It's so rare in this thread, I like to point it out.
So if I rolled a 20 on my reactive Perception check and got a total 45, beating the DC 20 to Notice and the DC 40 to Pinpoint, you would just tell me there was something around?And I would have to use a move action to have any chance of pinpointing it?
I would say: You get a reactive Perception check to the stimulus of an active invisible creature. Depending on your roll you can Pinpoint, Notice or fail entirely.
That seems to match the RAW just as well, considering the Invisibility text says nothing about active or reactive.
Pretty sure pinpointing does not imply noticing. Pinpointing is a thing you can do if and only if you already know there's something there. You have to have noticed (or otherwise been informed) to attempt it.
So you would say it's impossible to perceive an invisible creature more than 30' away?
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that "something's there" but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.
There is nothing in the rules text about when either check is allowed. Other than the "within 30'" part for notice.
All it says is that "It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint".
I'd say if you make the notice check by 20 points, you've already pinpointed. No need for another check. You could also make a Notice roll as an active check. Perhaps you'd noticed someone earlier, but are trying to see if he's left the area.
Yeah, the difference there is that Nixon's enemies list was a real thing, that he used to attack his political enemies. Not suspected terrorists, justly or not, but domestic politicians, reporters and activists.
Obama has a kill list, which I think is a bad thing. But it's not political rivals, it's been used solely on people affiliated with terrorists. Very loosely in some cases. With bad intelligence in others. Again, I think it's a very bad thing. But not something Darryl Issa needs to worry about, no matter how many investigations into Obama scandals he cranks up.
Except that's not the distinction between Notice and Pinpoint.
It's not that one is passive and the other active. It's that one is harder than the other.
Or at least that's the subject currently under contention.
It's certainly true that the RAW does not say you get a Notice check free and you must take a move action to have a chance of Pinpointing.
Actually the Spot check section doesn't match your version of the PF rules.The Notice/Locate goes up for holding still, which you have said doesn't happen.
The Pinpoint tracks directly as +20 to Locate.
You can't ignore the listen section. The skills were merged together. When you use Stealth while Invisible in PF, it's much more like Move Silently than Hiding. You don't need something to hide behind, like you did in 3.5, for example.
When they rolled them together they made it one check, with a base 20 to notice, like the Spot check and kept the further +20 to pinpoint.
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature over there somewhere. It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
That's interesting. It needs a little work: How does it interact with creatures who can't make Stealth checks, for example.The difficulty to Notice is lower, only the -4 to Perception, but that's not a bad thing really. Sneaking by someone without alerting them would rely on Stealth even if you're invisible.
The interesting thing from the POV of this discussion is that almost the same language is used as the invisibility section we're talking about: "locate" instead of "notice", "over there somewhere", "almost impossible to pinpoint" and the same +20 DC modifier to pinpoint, but here they make it clear that the Pinpoint is +20 to the Locate Perception check.
Hide is not the same as PF Stealth. Stealth is Hide and Move Silently.
I was refering to the developer discussion you linked earlier.
In 3.5 using Hide while invisible was a special thing, often not usable or useful. You needed cover or concealment beyond invisibility.
3.5 Invisibility and Hiding:
As noted in the description for the Hide skill, you gain a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you're moving and +40 on Hide checks if you're not moving.
To make a Hide check at all, you need some sort of concealment or cover, and that applies even when you're invisible and the creatures trying to spot you can't see invisible things. Invisibility gives you total concealment, but spotting something invisible carries its own Spot DCs and you can't make yourself harder to see without a little extra help from your surroundings.
When making your Hide check, apply all the modifiers that normally apply to the check (such as Armor Check penalties and penalties for your movement). Perceptive readers will note that you're effectively paying a double penalty for moving here because the bonus for being invisible is lower and you take a Hide check penalty for that movement as well. That, however, is the nature of invisibility in the D&D game. Any movement makes you easier to spot while you're invisible, whereas your speed makes it harder for you to hide and the effect gets worse the faster you go.
But I was specifically referring to the Spot Check DCs and the Listen Check DCs discussed in that article. Look at the tables for each. Also note this
the basic Spot DCs noted in the Dungeon Master's Guide are for merely noticing that there's something unseen somewhere within 30 feet. The DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.
The Listen doesn't say it that explicitly, but the table does show in each case a Listen DC to Locate that is 20 more than the Listen DC to Notice.
The Spot Checks are against flat DCs, with a distance modifier. The Listen ones are against Move Silently with various modifiers. Both use a +20 to pinpoint.
You can't just look at the Hide rules, because Stealth is a combination of Hide and Move Silently.
So you actually do think the RAW makes it easier to Pinpoint people farther than 30' than closer? At least if they're not sneaking.Agreed that it's nonsense.
I'm undecided on the more than 30' away issue.
The RAW is quite clear there is no chance to Notice more than 30' away.
But the Pinpoint DC doesn't change, right? (Other than a distance modifier)So at 45' you'd still have
Moving at less than half speed in both cases
Pinpoint DC 40 +4 = 44
With Stealth = 10
Low Stealth hurting when you move is still strange outside of 30'.
Unless you're doing something like not using the Notice DC as a base for Pinpoint outside 30', which makes Stealth better, but also means it's easier to Pinpoint someone not useing Stealth outside 30' than closer. Which makes no sense.
So looking at the actual AIG Audit, this is how the IRS scandal breaks down:
We discussed our results with EO function officials, who disagreed with our findings. Although EO function officials provided explanations about why the applications should have been identified as potential political cases, the case files did not include the specific reason(s) the applications were selected. EO function officials also stated that applications may not literally include statements indicating significant political campaign intervention.
According to EO function officials, organizations may not understand what constitutes political campaign intervention or may provide vague descriptions of certain activities that the EO function knows from past experience potentially involve political campaign intervention. In these cases, the EO function believes it is important to review the applications to ensure that political campaign intervention is not the organization's primary activity. To provide further assurance that Determinations Unit employees are handling tax matters in an impartial manner, it would be helpful to document specifically why applications are chosen for further review.
The issues seem to be more about documentation than actual lack of reasons.
What I couldn't find in the report was anything about what percentage of those 91 were conservative Tea Party groups, compared to the percentage of other groups. Nor could I find anything about the other groups that weren't selected.
If all 91 that might not have deserved the extra scrutiny were Tea Party groups, that's a good sign of bias and potentially a serious problem. If none of them were or if a similar percentage to other groups were, then it really wasn't.