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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 11,113 posts (11,846 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 11,113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Tirisfal wrote:
The Shaman wrote:
Actually, is there a book that discusses gender roles and culture in general in deeper detail for the "average" Varisian, Andoran, Belkzen orc etc and how those vary with what their home is (big city, village, citadel or vagrant), dominant cults etc? I generally play my games by ear and try to avoid possibly offensive topics such as what the typical gender roles, stereotypes et cetera are, but I wouldn´t mind knowing just how common it is to be, say, a female sergeant in Ustalav and whether certain professions tend to be predominantly male or female held. "Notably more equal than medieval Earth" is a fairly wide concept, sadly :/ .

I play it by ear, too, but I do err on the side of female NPCs over male, because in my "Not Earth" settings, be it Golarion or my homebrew, I kinda go off of the Earth statistics of women outnumbering men slightly.

What's sad is that an author will get called out if they have too many female characters in their novel, adventure, or movie, and told their work is too "feminist", but rarely will it be said that they have too many male characters.

I used to be self conscious of having too many main female characters in my stories after someone pointed it out to me. Now I just shrug it off and point at action movies with lone female window dressing characters.

There are studies suggesting that groups of around 30% women or where women do around 30% of the talking are perceived as dominated by women. At least in some contexts. Something similar may apply.


Tirisfal wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Editted to add: This seems to fall into the same category/questioning cycle we saw with homosexuality on Golarion or the other threads wondering why the default world doesn't follow lockstep with Earth. Because it isn't Earth.
I have to ask - and this is just playing devil's advocate a little - if there were absolutely no homosexual people on Golarion, and when asked why, the answer offered was 'because this isn't Earth', would you find that to be an acceptable or even believable answer?

"This isn't Earth" is such a broad, catch-all term, that I feel it's very disingenuous to keep bringing it into threads like this.

And I say that about both sides of the argument.

It's a broad, catch-all term, but it mostly gets brought out to respond to broad catch-all "But in the real world" arguments. You kind of have to respond with "this isn't real history" or agree that everything in your setting should be just like Earth.


Prince of Knives wrote:
The Shaman wrote:
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).
I would find it both really annoying and very unnecessary unless such races displayed extreme sexual dimorphism. Yes, we can talk about how in real life men tend to have better upper body strength or whatever, but that doesn't have to be represented with a strength bonus. The way you shake out your point buy describes where your character falls on those curves. Sure, maybe your 'average' female human has an 11 or 12 Con as opposed to a male 9 or 10, but if you buy it down to 7 you're saying that your female character is exceptionally sickly. No need to complicate that.

I'd actually like to see races with more extreme sexual dimorphism. Not necessarily just "Men bigger, stronger, Women, smaller, weaker" either, but different twists. Where gender roles are even stronger and more biologically based than in humans. You see this kind of thing in SF sometimes, more so than in fantasy. Also just more alien in general.

It's easy to see why the published settings/races don't do much of this, but there's still some coolness to it.


The Shaman wrote:
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).

PF is even more stat dependent than AD&D was. Plus those were limits, not adjustments. Limits would be hard because of the way stats increase in PF, as they did not in AD&D.

You'd see the same kind of influence on class choice that racial penalties have. With a strength penalty, females wouldn't be used for strength based characters, except as a rp or playing against type challenge. Like making a Halfling STr-based barbarian.


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
If one got REALLY detailed, even the simplest stat of a persons height in real physics matters greatly. The average male finds it harder to do acrobatics than a woman would because the usually taller man has a higher center of gravity than the woman. Both can do it with training but physics is physics. There are reasons why u c a LOT more female cheerleaders than male. And if u say it wasn't physics but some societal reason, the uve more or less made the point of many of the posters. And if someone says ladies look better than men, which I agree, then again they were not equal.

That's actually largely not height, but weight distribution within the body. Even for men and women of equal height, the woman's center of gravity will be lower. Men carry more weight in their chest/upper body and women carry it more on the hips.

Obviously this won't apply in all cases, the extremes will overlap, but it's a very strong trend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Editted to add: This seems to fall into the same category/questioning cycle we saw with homosexuality on Golarion or the other threads wondering why the default world doesn't follow lockstep with Earth. Because it isn't Earth.
I have to ask - and this is just playing devil's advocate a little - if there were absolutely no homosexual people on Golarion, and when asked why, the answer offered was 'because this isn't Earth', would you find that to be an acceptable or even believable answer?

I'd say the motivation is different. It's a perfectly good excuse to counter the argument that homosexuality is genetic and therefore there must be LGBTQ people on Golarion. But it's an excuse. I'd want to know why the designer decided his world would be better off without homosexual people.

Absent a good such reason, I'd assume the designer was motivated by prejudice against homosexuals.

In the reverse case that we're discussing, the actual reasons are clear. They want the world to be more inclusive, to allow characters of both genders to be played equally without being pushed mechanically into certain roles or to have to play the "overcoming gender discrimination" trope with every female character.
In this case, the "this isn't Earth" card is being used to allow them to do that, both mechanically and culturally.

You can use the "This isn't Earth" card to justify whatever you want. The important question is what is it you want and why do you want it.


Captain Wacky wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the obvious more modern take, why should a Jedi be turned to the Dark Side just for using his anger. Shouldn't it only be what he does with the anger that matters?

As far as I know, per the Expanded Universe stuff this is the case. I'm not a big Star Wars fan (far from it, really...) but IIRC it's clarified that simply using anger is not enough, it must be tempered into pure baseless hatred and then used for despicable acts before you're truly fallen to the Dark Side.

Even classically Dark Side powers (like Force Lightning and Choke) can be safely used by Light Side people as long as they realize that they're merely tools for a purpose...and that tool is not at all universally applicable.

Not to turn this into a Star Wars debate... but.

Yes, you have to temper it into hatred before you fall. Yes you can use anger and not fall. However, the Force controls the actions of Jedi and Sith as much as they control it. As you use it, so it changes you.

Dark side powers require anger and hatred to use, they're not just tools, they are extensions of your feelings. As you use them, those feelings get stronger until you fall. So, can you use dark side powers and not fall? Yes, once, maybe twice depending on the amount of anger in said Jedi. But it's Not safe or without consiquence, the taint of using your feelings in such a way leaves a stain that other Jedi and Sith can sense. The Force is apart of you and you apart of it. Using the dark side is accepting that darkness and inviting it in, you're allowing it to change you and become apart of you in order to use those powers.

Well, I was more using it as an analogy and basing it on my vague pre-Expanded Universe memories, but I still think the analogy holds.

You can use evil spells without immediately changing alignment, even in the harshest interpretation of the setting rules. But they taint you and using them excessively will shift your alignment.


Rynjin wrote:

None of those are the result of casting the spell, however, which is why it's dumb to have aligned spells.

Using spells to do evil things is Evil, period.

Using spells to do good things is Good, period.

That SHOULD be the extent of it.

But nooooo, we have to have some silly addition to the rules from a campaign setting book that says if I cast Animate Dead and use the creations for good purposes, I committed a minor act of Evil.

Which is dumb, plain and simple.

Right. Because Undead are evil in and of themselves.

Using demonic power, even trying to do so for good purposes, is evil in and of itself.
There are various sources of power in the setting that are in fact evil. Using them is evil.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to use it in your setting or even in your home games in Golarion. It's a well established trope in the fantasy genre and while I wouldn't always use it, I like having it supported.

The idea of the wizard trying to use dark powers for altruistic purposes and finding himself twisted and corrupted by them is found throughout the genre. It's a fun thing to play around with sometimes.

For the obvious more modern take, why should a Jedi be turned to the Dark
Side just for using his anger. Shouldn't it only be what he does with the anger that matters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jetty wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.

If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.

That depends on the situation and should be decided IC, even if the solution is not always the best one.
Who talks is an IC decision. Who rolls the dice and whether they're rolling Aid or the main check is an OOC decision. The characters aren't rolling dice.

This is true as long as the Judge runs it that way.

Sad to say, not all of them do it that way, and that teaches some players to "Speed roll a D20". Everytime the Judge says "I need someone to roll - ", and dice are already rattleing the table top....

Speed-Roller: "I got a 17!"
Judge: "In what?"
Speed-Roller: "what you were asking for?!"
Judge: "finishing my statement now...a suicide attempt."

Yeah, I actually saw that in a PFS game.

That's still an OOC decision. It's just the Judge's.

And that's awesome.


S'mon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sure, why not? You don't need any more strict discipline to keep from raping your crewmates than to keep from murdering them or stealing from them.

Whether that's true or not (and I don't envy the cabin boy on pre-modern sailing vessels) replace "raping" with "attempting to have sex with" and maybe you can see the problem. Or not, *sigh*.

I think it can be worked around. Charismatic leadership, harsh discipline, religious taboo are just three possibilities I've thought of, trying to work out how to run S&S. It's the attitude that there is nothing to work around, nothing that needs thinking about or justifying, that is problematic.

Or you know, some of them have sex. Some of them don't. Some of them participate in drunken orgies. Some of them don't. Male and female in all cases.

Some of them try to have sex with others and don't take the rebuff kindly and fights break out. Fights break out over cheating at cards too.

The same problems occur with gay pirates. Or "not really gay, but there aren't any women around so ..." pirates.

Rum, sodomy and the lash. Except less lash on the pirate ships.


Jetty wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.

If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.

That depends on the situation and should be decided IC, even if the solution is not always the best one.

Who talks is an IC decision. Who rolls the dice and whether they're rolling Aid or the main check is an OOC decision. The characters aren't rolling dice.


Mattastrophic wrote:

It is worth nothing that, for the most part, Aid Another can only be used when the assisting character is capable of succeeding at the skill check he is aiding.

So that 7Cha character with no ranks in Diplomacy can't actually assist with a DC 20 Diplomacy check.

This means that this 7 Cha unskilled diplomat can only hurt the group by stepping up to talk.

Based on this, I assume:
Quote:
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone.

I always took that to mean things like "Need to have trapfinding to disarm magic traps", not just "Can't make the DC even with a 20."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Naval Stuff

I don't have a dog in this fight, but are you comparing military discipline to pirate crews? Y'know the criminal kind? And expecting them to act the same when you mesh men and women and put them out on a boat in the middle of an ocean where no one is around and there is zero communication to land?

It's certainly possible that there may be a disciplined and cleaner pirate crew out there that may be able to handle having women as a part of the crew, but it certainly wouldn't be the norm. These are pirates. Lawless vandals who raid the coastline pillaging, looting and yeah theres a bit of that extra evil going on too probably.

In a world where the women can kick ass themselves? Sure, why not? You don't need any more strict discipline to keep from raping your crewmates than to keep from murdering them or stealing from them. Unless the viewpoint is that women are easy victims, which isn't true in Golarion, nor is it the standard assumption.

All of those things would happen from time to time of course, but they would also often be met with the person attempting it finding a swift knife and a watery grave.


Of course part of the reason there's no real world analogy to Shackles pirate ships with 40-50% female crew, is that there's no real modern analogy to Shackle's pirate ships.
As Orfamay notes, some modern navies are integrated, but navies aren't pirates. Modern pirates aren't really anything like traditional pirate movie pirates, so that doesn't really help.

Back in the pirate days, society was very much divided by gender. Even the pirate women mentioned started their careers disguised. But that was the world at the time. In a world with less strict gender roles, what's special about pirate ships that would make it not work.
Especially when you consider the captains and officers are mid/high level PC-classed characters, meaning they fall into pretty much the same exceptions that the PCs get. Or even if you enforce strength penalties on NPC women, the non-strength based classes would do just fine.


Jetty wrote:

@thejeff

You are making assumptions or I might not have been clear enough. I never said what you are implying.

The issue in the original post was not who goes first, but why the characters/players with low skills attempt them. That is what I was responding to.
Moreover I wrote it is important to role-play the encounter, so any "I use Diplomacy" statements from my players are just OOC info about what they are trying to do, but it is pointless to roll unless they actually attempt something.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs.

The assumption I made seems implied in the question.

If the low skill character tries it when no one else wants to there's no issue. If the low skill character tries it and anyone else can also try it, there's also no issue.
Even with Diplomacy, if everyone wants to go out and make a Gather Information roll, for example, that's fine. The high skill guy is going to bring back the most info anyway.
The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.

If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
S'mon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Most likely they are trying to use the case of extraordinarily strong women and/or equally weak men as the norm. Sometimes people get so caught up in their corner case they forget that the discussion is on the norm.

I was told (on ENW, a couple years ago now) that the belief men are stronger than women is a false social construct. Also that by saying men were stronger (on average) I was encouraging rape, because this would discourage women from fighting back against an aggressor.

As far as I can tell, the people who said this were being serious. Incidentally my wife in her leisure time is a Rugby Prop Forward, and stronger than at least 95% of women. She is under no doubts that not only is she nowhere near as strong as a typical male Rugby Prop Forward, she is in most respects nowhere near as strong as a typical man (but good luck trying to push her around). :)

Yeah, I've run into it here too.

Sorry. Sexual dimorphism is a real thing. I've got no problems ignoring it in the game, but it definitely matters in the real world.


Jetty wrote:

Response to the initial post>

Those are all wrong questions. It does not matter who rolls the Diplomacy check if he role-playes along with the check in a way consistent with his character. It might be fun for everybody. If the other characters are having problems with this, thay have to tell him IC. Unless they do so, everything is fine. The point is to have a game which is fun for everybody, not to play the best way possible.
Lacking skill points in a certain skills can not prevent you in trying that skill (minus some special skills). It is like you would be offended by a noicy character trying to make a stealth check or a character with low wisdom and no ranks in Perception rolling Perception check.

On the other hand, if you have a player who annoys other players (not a character annoying other characters - that is fine), than do not play with him next time or even kick him out during the play.
Unless Pathfinder Society rules say you have to play with jerks... ;-)

So, as you run things, the first (pushiest?) player to jump up and say "I use Diplomacy" is the one who makes the Diplomacy check? Anyone else can do no more than Aid him?

After all there are no rules to determine who acts or which try will take precedence so it must just be the first to say anything, right?

Talking to someone is an in-character action. Making the Diplomacy roll is a metagame decision. I feel perfectly justified as a GM in listening to the -2 Diplomacy barbarian make a fool of himself and then asking the other characters what they're doing before calling for a Diplomacy roll. If they stand aside, the barbarian makes the real roll. If the bard steps in and smoothly covers the faux pas, he makes the real roll and the barbarian rolls to assist. Everyone who wants to gets to talk. Everyone who wants to gets to roll. Highest skill counts, the others assist.
If a player objects and demands to be the one making the roll, then that's an player level problem and comes close to the "Don't be a jerk" rule. There may be cases where characters are asking for different things with the social skills and then there may be in character reasons. One trying Intimidate and the other Diplomacy, for example. I'm still hesitant to always rule that the player who speaks first goes first, though.
Especially in PbP, where it's often just a matter of who's online when.


Or more politely, there are a lot of herbs used for birth control. Some of them even had an effect. They were not particularly reliable. There were also a number used as abortifacients, but those were generally subcritical doses of poison and thus often either ineffective or dangerous depending on dosage.


Mike Franke wrote:

When something is free, you get what you pay for.

Unfortunately, despite what some people believe nothing is actually free. In the U.S. healthcare is 100% free for people who don't have money. It has been like that for a long time, it is illegal for hospitals to turn away patients regardless of ability to pay.

But it is only free for them as the cost is then passed along to all of the paying patients who then must pay astronomically higher prices.

This in turn encourages people who pay to get insurance. Unfortunately, the government then says it is not fair that some people have insurance while others don't and passes laws to make insurance more expensive and adds taxes to pay for the whole thing.

Thus once again healthcare is still free for people with no money but people who actually pay for their care must pay much much more.

That is how healthcare works in America.

Also, only certain types of emergency care are free when you show up to the emergency room. They have to stabilize you and deal with the immediate problem enough to ship you out the door. OK for things like broken bones (though you won't get any physical therapy or prosthetics), but useless for a lot of diseases. They'll diagnose you and write you a prescription, perhaps, but you can't fill the prescription for free, so that doesn't help a lot.

And using the emergency room is the most expensive way for the hospital to provide care. A complete waste when people are using it for non-emergency needs because it's the only place they won't be turned away if they can't pay.


In most cases, especially social skills, the skill check is a meta thing. The character is talking. The player and/or GM makes the call for a skill check.

I'd be perfectly happy as the GM, when the -1 Diplomacy Barbarian starts talking to the crucial NPC to ask the other players what they're doing and then, assuming some of the others join in the conversation, ask them who wants to make the main roll and who wants to Aid.

Everyone gets to talk. Everyone gets to roll dice. Usually the person with the good skill will actually get to make the main roll.
If the unsocial barbarian still wants to be the one, then you've got a player issue.

In PFS at least, where pretty much everything is assumed to be a team effort with everyone pitching in and only one success needed. In a home game, from time to time everyone is going to have to do their own one on one social interactions for one reason or another. At least in most games I've run or played in.


Anguish wrote:
Komoda wrote:

I think you guys are letting your perception of Perception get the better of you. It is the sum of what your character can notice, not necessarily see. Line of sight is for seeing things. You basically "SEE" everything within line of sight, baring stealth.

In one of the examples above, someone said that the PCs could not Perceive the trap door under the rug.

Just to be clear:

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PERCEPTION IS FOR!

Just to be clearer than clear, here's my sentence you seem to be referring to:

"But if there's a trap-door under the rug under the desk, there isn't line-of-sight so you can't see it."

My hypothetical trap door that is hidden by a rug is itself obscured by a solid object (in this case a desk), and I specifically went out of my way to point out that there wasn't line-of-sight to the doorway.

So just to be clear, how do the characters find this? What actions need to be taken to find the trapdoor under the rug under the desk?

You've said a check from the doorway wouldn't work. No line of sight to the trapdoor.
Or to the rug? I'd assume the rug would be at least partly visible sticking out from under the desk.

Since it's concealed by the desk and the rug, I'd assume regular Perception checks from anywhere else in the room also couldn't find it.
How about if I just said "I search the room."? You determine how long that takes. Is that enough?

What if I search the desk? Or is that assumed to be just going through the drawers and the like?

If I actually say "I move the desk", is that enough or is the trap door still out of line of sight under the rug and thus can't be found.

I assume at the very worst I get a Perception check after moving the rug?

And just to jump back to the start, this situation is the very kind of thing that happens regularly in the genre literature. Our keen-eyed hero sees the disturbance in the dust where the rug has been moved or the faint scratches in the floor from the desk moving and realizes that there's something hidden underneath.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Moreover, getting people who have fled Cuba for Florida to be quoted in the article is really telling.
Not so much as you'd think, given that (a) it's not really kosher to just pop over to Cuba to ask people there; and (b) this is probably an absurd exaggeration, but someone once told me there may be more Cubans in Miami now than in Havana anyway*.

Yes, but people who've fled the Cuba regime (and their children) might not be exactly the most unbiased sources.


pres man wrote:
I might point out that women don't typically wear men's clothing. They wear a women's version of the clothing. Women's slacks, women's jeans, etc. They are not rocking the men's outfits. So if men wanted to wear dresses, they wouldn't put on women's dresses, they would need men's dresses designed for men.

True, but when women started wearing men's clothing it was actual men's clothing, because no one was making women's pants, since women didn't wear pants.

If men have to wear men's dresses made for men, it's a Catch-22. You can't start by wearing them since no one makes them, because there's no market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Hama wrote:

Doctor Who is not fantasy. It's science fiction.

I'm a Whovian, but seriusly.

OK, so, my bona fides is that I have about 70% of the extant original series material on DVD, and ALL of the new series on Blu-Ray. I'd kind of consider myself an expert on Who lore.

In the past there have been stories that were more sci-fi, but it was always a pretty light touch. Especially in the new series, there's a lot more fantasy than there is actual science fiction. Like, ok there's space...and...well that's about it. Fantasy travels to other worlds, gives us magic, constructs elaborate mythologies. Sci-Fi informs us how it would work with science (something Who never EVER really does) and usually has some moralistic tone about how these concepts affect, or could affect, our lives.

It's about as SF as Narnia.

However, it is decidedly not a traditional medieval magical fantasy series.

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of SF purists who have a limited view of what science fiction is (or should be) and push every thing else into fantasy. I suspect there are fantasy purists who would declare that Doctor Who has far too little of the elements they consider defining so it definitely isn't fantasy.

More seriously, there are a lot of sub-genres of both SF and Fantasy with some overlap between them, not all of either grouping falling into the categories above.


N N 959 wrote:
Doug Miles wrote:
1. I wouldn't assume that a PC, like a real person, always has insight into their abilities (or lack thereof) to win friends and influence people. I find it very authentic when a low-CHA PC wants to do the talking for the group. It also keeps the other characters engaged with what is going on in the adventure.

Actually, most people do have an awareness of what they are good at and what they aren't. It's called social feedback. In fact, there are experiments that people have a finely tuned and extremely rapid ability to assess how others perceive them. Even when their value is artificially determined.

Society does an incredible job of discouraging people from pursuing things that they are not skilled at. You're essentially trying to argue that the person with the worst public speaking skills in any classroom is constantly trying to raise their hand and speak, despite repeatedly getting laughed at or ridiculed. Sorry I have to reject your assertion as being contrary to actual facts and data from social research and common sense. It comes across as a way to rationalize anti-social/self centered behavior at the gaming table.

OTOH, we all have known "that guy" who had no social skills whatsoever, but was still loud and pushy. In general, I agree, but exceptions do exist.

More generally, roleplaying is part of the game. People who aren't playing face characters want to interact with the NPCs too. (Or may just want to push the game along when it's bogged down in player indecision.)

Some of it may be a GM issue. Requiring the check as soon as the first player talks or from the player who talked most, rather than letting the highest skill roll and the other talkers assist.


Komoda wrote:

I think you guys are letting your perception of Perception get the better of you. It is the sum of what your character can notice, not necessarily see. Line of sight is for seeing things. You basically "SEE" everything within line of sight, baring stealth.

In one of the examples above, someone said that the PCs could not Perceive the trap door under the rug.

Just to be clear:

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PERCEPTION IS FOR!

Is there a bulge in the rug? Is there a difference in the dirt where the rug ends? Is the rug totally out of place and a sign that something is hidden there? Is the rug really a curtain that is missing from the window? Is there nothing on top of the rug making it easy to move, indicating access to a trap door?

THAT is what perception is for. The ability to quantify the logic that we use in relation to our senses is IMPOSSIBLE in real life with things like scientists and computers. Any of the "triggers" above could lead someone to the trap door. They are usually called hunches.

As DMs you don't describe every feature of the room. There are 100 plus items is the room I am in now. If it were a game, 4-5 of them matter. Perception allows the PCs to pick out the ones that matter without the DM giving a dissertation on each item in the room.

Perception is all the sensory information that the PCs have access to. ALL OF IT. Anything you describe as DM is just stuff that everyone automatically understands. Perception checks allow for the deviation of a character's ability to understand what is right in front of them.

Please get over the "there is no search check."

Of course there is. It is done using the Perception skill. There is no Jump skill, there is a Jump check. There is no Tumble skill, there is a Tumble check. There is no Decipher Text skill, there is a decipher text check. There is no Pick Lock skill, there is a pick lock check.

It is OK to call the check what the check is as long as the right skill is used. Often times...

While I largely agree, especially with things like the rug example, we're back to the timing question: If we call searching the room a Perception check and allow that to cover finding things under or within other things, how long does it take?

Can I roll a single Perception check as a move action and have a chance of finding anything and everything in the room? Can I Take 20 and be sure of finding anything it's possible for me to find in a most 2 minutes?


I'll have to stop by the Grid sometime. I haven't been there in years, but I'm back in that area.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Not when the enemy is doing 40-80 damage a round to individual targets without a resource limit on them. My Oracle only has so many channels.

Might be worth it in cases where the enemy isn't concentrating fire. Laying down area effect damage for example.

Normally it's not 40 points to each of 4 people = 160 points, because they're not all down 40. One has taken 80 and the others have taken a few hits each.


Anguish wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The other is nosig's frustration with not being allowed to make a Take 20 Perception check without being assumed to be searching the room.

Really, my side - not that I'm overtly disagreeing with anyone, actually - is the head-shaking side.

I still don't get the conversation. Where's the bit where nosig says to his DM "I just want to know what my PC can spot from the doorway. I don't expect him to see anything impossible, just spot stuff, like maybe there's a secret door behind a tapestry and by paying enough attention he might see the tapestry moving slightly due to air coming through the secret door's seams."

It's evident nosig has a huge beef with his DM, but said DM isn't (evidently) here to benefit from any of the discussion. I reiterate... communication is king, and this is an at-the-table learning how to make yourself understood discussion.

I don't deny him/her his/her right to make this thread... that's not where I'm going with this. Maybe it's just venting, but I still don't see the purpose that is being worked-towards here. The person who is supposed to have some sort of epiphany ("aha! nosig's PC just wants to know what they can SEE from the doorway!") isn't here.

I shouldn't answer for nosig, but since this was in response to my post:

As I understand it, and feel free to call me out if I get this wrong, nosig is talking about playing in PFS, where this thread originated. Thus there is no single GM, but a common experience with multiple GMs.
In the hypothetical conversation upthread
Quote:

Player: But I only want to take 20 on -

Judge: exactly! weren't you listening to the distription of the room - there are bookshelves lining all the walls, and drawers you need to open -
Player: I only want to take a minute to look around -
Judge: What are you trying to pull? A minute to look and you see what I discribed, now if we can get back to the other players and get on with the game!
Player (well cowed now): sorry... it wont happen again.

Those "-"s at the end of the Player's lines? Those are where the Judge cut him off. That's where he was trying to explain before being shut down.

And probably rightly so. Or at least right for the player not to contest any further. Arguments about rules in the middle of a game are more disruptive than bad rulings. And in the PFS context, there often isn't time to hash things out after the game. Nor as much motivation as in a home game where you'll be dealing with the same GM for a longer period.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.

Oh? Go ahead, put one on. See who'll stop you. If you want to wear a dress, wear one. There are dresses I would love to wear, I just can't afford them. (Sorry, my tastes are a little too refined, that's my problem. Also, my wife can't stop staring at me longingly when I'm in slacks, no reason to change what I'm already rocking.) And no, I'm a bog-standard cisgendered heterosexual man. I just know that I could wear it. Would I get stares? Would I make people uncomfortable? Yes, unfortunately.

But you know what? I grew up with alopecia. Half my hair fallen out in random patterns. I'm used to getting stares and making people uncomfortable just by existing. It wouldn't stop me.

I suppose it would be harder for most people. Most others can just be themselves and blend in and never get extra notice unless they seek it. Growing up able to hide your differences from strangers on the street has its value. But really, what does it take? Not much. Just put on the dress. That's all. Really, that's all.

So wear the dress, Abyssal Lord. Smash the stereotype. It's right there. It's in your power. Nothing stopping you.

Well, as long as you're not in High School. See the start of this thread.

And depending on your workplace, they might fire you there as well.

But essentially yes. If guys want to wear dresses, they're going to have to suffer some social discrimination until it becomes common enough that the idea is accepted. Much like women did until wearing men's clothes was acceptable. Except probably without quite the same levels of legal opposition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the frustration in this thread may stem from approaching the question from two different angles.
One is trying to figure out what happens when a player says, for example, "I search the room". How long does it take? How many rolls (or Take 10/20)? Do they have to specify anything more specific or will they find whatever can be found (possibly based on Perception)?

The other is nosig's frustration with not being allowed to make a Take 20 Perception check without being assumed to be searching the room.

It should be clear to everyone that the latter is possible. Though it's somewhat unclear what would be found.
Even in PFS though, the first is going to have a lot of table variation. It would be nice to have a more mechanical way to handle it. Which 3.x's Search skill did do, though there were other issues with that.

Example question: PFS scenario says something along the lines of: A PC who examines the floor near X with a DC Y Perception check notices Z.

Does the Take 20 Perception from the doorway have a chance of noticing, assuming that bit of floor is in line of sight?
Does "I search the room" have a chance of noticing?
Or do you have to specify that particular area or even the floor near X?

I can see an argument for any of the above.


Abyssal Lord wrote:

Why should everybody be shocked or surprised?

Not the first time things like this comes out of Hollywood.
The term "casting couch" is not created for nothing.

Who's shocked or surprised? That it happens and we know it happens, doesn't mean it's OK.

Though in this case it is alleged to be actual rape, not a casting couch agreement. And the California part was apparently statutory as well. That makes it a bigger deal than "X director had sex with Y actor to get a part."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of contradictory information floating about. The link offered above says the plaintiff was 17 when he met Singer, which I think would make him of legal age for sex in Hawaii, where that abuse was alleged to have taken place. Others say he was 15.

The same link also alleges abuse in California. The first quote took place at the M&C Estate, which is in Encino. Under California law 17 was not legal age, at least with an older person.

Quote:
The issue of drugs, alcohol, and violence are troubling, but I think there are other factors at work here that also concern me. Someone like Singer, being openly gay, is particularly vulnerable to allegations like this. There are some fairly hedonistic gay subcultures within the US that have older gay teens willingly participating (as they pretty much always have) but where their willing participation is, by modern definition, abusive. If this lawsuit gains traction, participating in those subcultures, even infrequently, could have gotten even more dangerous. This whole case could even fuel more smears against gay men as predators.

There are also plenty of subcultures in the US where straight female teens willingly participate in sex with men in their 20s or 30s. In many cases those teens are legally underage or at least underage for adults.

I get the problem with gay men being viewed as predators. OTOH, maybe a culture of sex parties with underage teens and older men isn't something we want to encourage. Whether it's gay or straight.


Sissyl wrote:
Indeed. The Polanski case felt quite surreal. It was... Quite a while ago now, and the victim didn't want anything to do with it, as I understood it.

Well other than the actual trial being in the 70s shortly after the events and Polanksi fled to France before being sentences and has essentially lived in exile ever since.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:
Above and beyond the tactical issues, the sad truth is that in the majority of cases healing can't even keep pace with a single round's average damage. Making healing literally worse than doing much of anything else.

Not really.

Let's say you have three allies, all attacking - a couple of optimized martial damage dealers and an arcane caster. The enemies are focusing their attacks and trying to kill one of the martials. The martial character has 100HP but is taking 40-50 damage per round. You can heal, say, 25 damage per round with ordinary healing spells. Let's also say this is a fairly tough battle and if you just stood around doing ntohing, the martial character would die before the battle was won.
Options:
1 Be a healbot and heal the fighter every round.
2 Wait for it to become an emergency and then start healing.
3 Don't heal at all.

Option 1 usually works if your allies are any good. Sure, you can't keep up with the damage being dealt, but you negate about half the damage each time, meaning he lasts twice as long before going down. That buys your allies and extra action or two each, which is almost always enough to win a battle. This has the disadvantage of using up more party resources.
Option 2 sometimes works but if it does become an emergency the small amount of healing you do may not be enough to make any difference at that point. The fighter goes from -10 hit points and unconscious to 15 hit points and prone; he's still one round away from death.
Option 3 will normally work if you have optimized your character for battle and prepared appropriate spells.

Option 4: Join in attacking the bad guys and take them down sooner.

Sure, healing is a better option than standing around waiting, but buffing the party, debuffing the bad guys or just piling on damage, whichever you're good at is often better.
And that's what you've left out of your scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

Mmmm.

Can you quote the bit that says you can use Perception on everything in a room in 1 minute? I mean, specifically. I ask this because I'm pretty sure the same rule you're going to quote applies equally well to finding everything in a dungeon. Or on a continent. I mean, yeah, there's a wall in the way, so the DC goes up by 10 but hey, that's easy to ace when you're taking 20 and have...

All of which essentially matches what nosig has been saying, ignoring the bit about finding everything in the dungeon from one spot.

Take 20 Perception check from the door finds you anything you can see with that Perception score from the door. And that will take as long as rolling 20 perception checks. 10 rounds (possibly 20) If you want to find something on the back side of a desk, you'll need to move in and do it again from elsewhere in the room. If you want to look in the desk drawers you'll need to do that. A through search of the room will take longer.

And there are no Spot or Search skills anymore. In 3.x Spot was used to find hiding creatures anyway, not traps or clues or anything else. It's not a spot or search difference. It's multiple uses of the Perception skill. It's standing there for a minute, scanning the room intensely, looking for anything odd or out of place.

Honestly, outside of PFS, I'd let you move around the room, take 2 minutes and Take 20 and find pretty much anything that wasn't inside or maybe under something else. And tell them how much longer it would take to do a thorough search. Largely because I'm not interested in either the group missing too much stuff or playing out the description of how they empty everything and break apart all the furniture, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

What was the tech level of....

Pre-Cowboy American Indian

Pre-Conquistador Aztec

Neolithic, essentially. (By pre-cowboy, I assume you mean pre-contact, since there was an awful lot of tech passed in the hundreds of years before the cowboy days.)

It's not usually called that and was more advanced in some ways, with agricultural and social advances made in the Old World after they learned to work metals.

Both groups would probably do quite well. At least compared to more advanced cultures.

Another point I hadn't thought of until now. They absolutely need to bring a breeding population of livestock and a good supply of seeds and cuttings for crops. At the tech levels were talking about domesticating plants and animals is a long slow process and without them your population carrying capacity crashes.
You really can't put together civilization without agriculture.


Yes, but carefully please. Things like "since apparently they would have been okay with it if they had gotten a movie role perhaps" go over the line for me.

If there's no evidence other than his testimony it'll be a really hard case for him to win. If Singer can prove he was in Canada then it all collapses of course.

And remember that the same accusations were thrown at many of the clergy sex abuse scandal victims: "They're just coming out now for the money."

Isn't that always true of any lawsuit? Anyone suing for money has that motivation to be fabricating the accusation. How much weight should that be given in court?


Sissyl wrote:

If Singer manages to prove, as he claims to be able to, that he was in Canada when the crime was to have taken place in Hawaii, I'd say it's pretty darn clear it's not a case of victim blaming of any kind, but rather, you know, the truth.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

As for the "more blatantly raped woman" above, when does someone actually BECOME a victim? When subjected to a crime? When going out with having been subjected to the crime? When the perpetrator of the crime is sentenced? What happens if DNA testing (for example) later exonerates the perpetrator? What happens if it's judged to be a false accusation in court? During which of these periods is the person a victim?

Victim blaming is a thing even if it turns out in this particular case there wasn't a victim.

If you're claiming it couldn't have been rape because she was dressed sexy or it couldn't have been rape because she willingly went to his apartment or because she'd had sex with other guys then you're victim blaming.
It's a thing the person doing the blaming does. The actual status of the alleged victim doesn't matter as much.

But I'll turn it back on you: Many rape survivors, including child abuse survivors never come forward or don't for many years. Many rapists are never prosecuted or convicted. In cases where the victim doesn't know the attacker, the attacker may never even be identified. Does any of that make the person not a victim of the crime?
If someone is murdered, but the murderer isn't caught, is he not a victim of murder?
So I'd say, When the crime occurs. Some may be lying about it, but that possibility doesn't mean the stereotypical attacks are acceptable.


Sissyl wrote:

If Singer manages to prove, as he claims to be able to, that he was in Canada when the crime was to have taken place in Hawaii, I'd say it's pretty darn clear it's not a case of victim blaming of any kind, but rather, you know, the truth.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

As for the "more blatantly raped woman" above, when does someone actually BECOME a victim? When subjected to a crime? When going out with having been subjected to the crime? When the perpetrator of the crime is sentenced? What happens if DNA testing (for example) later exonerates the perpetrator? What happens if it's judged to be a false accusation in court? During which of these periods is the person a victim?

Well, given that at least some of the victim blaming comments were accepting that the encounter took place, but that it wasn't really rape, just the alleged victim being greedy because he never got the movie deals, I'd have a hard time calling them "truth". Even if Singer proves he wasn't there.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
trollbill wrote:
And this helps the rest of the table enjoy it how?

They don't have to play with someone that isn't enjoying himself.

David Bowles wrote:
How do you know a priori that the table is going to have three pets at it?
Some of us use this thing called communication to plan the table in advance. :)

So how does that work as a GM? You sign up to run a game, see who signs up to play it and then bail?

I guess that's better than bailing at the last minute when people have already shown up, but it still seems like bad practice.


nosig wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So according to these approaches, to thoroughly search anything you would have to Take 20 (at least 1 minute, possibly 2) Perception check standing motionless in enough different places to get visual coverage of every side of it.

Anything you wanted to open and look inside (drawers, cupboards, small closets,etc) would require another Take 20 Perception check. Lifting rugs? Under the bed?
And you'll have to describe each of these things, so the GM knows where you're looking.

Hopefully, this doesn't extend to a separate check for every book you want to flip through. After all, you can't see inside them all at once from where you're standing. :)

no.

If I am going to search something I might not do a perception check at all.
"I search my backpack for my flask of alchemist fire" -
"that takes a minute" -
"what? it's the only thing in there!"

yeah...
a room,
a prisoner,
a building,
a pocket,
the bottom of the pickle jar...

all of these can be searched - and some would use the perception skill to do it... but I am not using a perception skill check to find the contents of my pocket.
Search is an action and should be under the control of the judge to decide how long that action takes - depending on a lot of factors.

How is that "no"? How is it different from my description?

I'm not saying "Search" is a synonym for "Perception". I'm trying to figure out what happens if I want to search a room. Using "search" here as a colloquial term not a mechanics one, because it's a real valid thing that characters will want to do.

As I understand your response, the search of the room should always be played out. There is no mechanical shortcut. Anything the players don't mention examining should be ignored, unless it's in plain view from some place where they say they're standing when they make a Perception check. In many cases, to be sure, you'll need to Take 20 on each different line of sight or looking in each container or under each object, all of which you will have to describe opening or moving.
Because there are no mechanics to handle this.

That's a flaw in the system. There should be mechanics to handle it.

As for your backpack example, your GM shouldn't make you Take 20 without you asking. Finding a single flask in an otherwise empty pack should be a DC1 or 2 check. Move action. Don't bother rolling. :)


Arnwyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Can we stop with the victim blaming?
Where?

From the 2nd comment on there have been comments about the guy was okay with it and he waited too long and he's just in it for the money and if he'd gotten a movie role he wouldn't have done anything.

That's all victim blaming. Maybe not quite to the level of "But she wore a sexy skirt", but it's still all about trashing the victim and his motives.

Alleged victim.

Innocent until proven guilty is still a core concept in justice systems in North America.

There is no victim blaming in this thread. (Later on, once more information is available, there might be.)

Fine. Alleged victim blaming.

There's a difference between acknowledging that a crime may not have been committed or that the accused may not have been the one to commit it and accusing the alleged victim of only coming forward because he's greedy and didn't get what he wanted.

Consider a more blatant rape case: A woman claims to have been grabbed on the street, dragged into an alley and raped. Someone claims she wanted it because she was wearing a short dress. Obviously not victim blaming because it hasn't yet been proven in court that she was actually raped, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So according to these approaches, to thoroughly search anything you would have to Take 20 (at least 1 minute, possibly 2) Perception check standing motionless in enough different places to get visual coverage of every side of it.
Anything you wanted to open and look inside (drawers, cupboards, small closets,etc) would require another Take 20 Perception check. Lifting rugs? Under the bed?
And you'll have to describe each of these things, so the GM knows where you're looking.

Hopefully, this doesn't extend to a separate check for every book you want to flip through. After all, you can't see inside them all at once from where you're standing. :)


nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Anguish wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't understand this thread.

If a player does not intend to search each 5ft square of a room and a GM interprets that he does, and said GM says "that will take a very long time", that player can simply say "that's not what I'm asking to do".

You do not have to search every 5 foot square of the room. There is no intent to do that because there is no NEED to do that. The search skill is dead. LOOK at the perception skill. Do you see ANYTHING there about squares? No.

Clarifying your misconception is exactly what the post is about.

There is no need to search the squares. You take 20 and search the entire room, in 1 minute. Done.

BNW - I think you are falling into the same trap most people here are...

Repeating the title of the thread "Perception is not Search'.

A Perception check is a skill check. A Player takes this skill check to detect things in his PCs environment. Taking 20 on it means he is doing this check 20 times. He is not searching the room.

A "search" is a group of actions that a PC might do to locate things in an area. There are no precise rules covering what actions are taken in a "search" - I don't think there can be. A PC could "search":
a room,
a prisoner,
a building,
his pocket,
the bottom of the pickle jar...

all these "searches" might use perception checks -

It's kind of like killing a monster. In the action of "killing" there might be a number of "attack" rolls made - just like in a "search" there might be a number of "perception" checks made.

I would like to comment on your statement that I bolded above. I beleave you were meaning "You take 20 and perceive the entire room, in 1 minute."

Certainly true from a legalistic perspective, but it leaves it very unclear how one actually finds things. If you were GMing and a player said "I'll search the room", what would you do? Correct him and tell him he's perceiving the room with his Perception check? Ignore Perception rolls and play out exactly what he's doing to search the room? Some combination?

It's a thing players want to do and will do. How should it be handled? If the current rules don't handle it, then they should. Currently it seems to be a matter of table variation. Perhaps less here in PFS where DCs are spelled out, often with the conditions for rolling. Even there there is ambiguity: A PC who examines the floor near X with a DC Y Perception check notices Z. Does "I search the room" get you that chance or do you have to specifically say, "I examine the floor near X"?


Arnwyn wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Can we stop with the victim blaming?
Where?

From the 2nd comment on there have been comments about the guy was okay with it and he waited too long and he's just in it for the money and if he'd gotten a movie role he wouldn't have done anything.

That's all victim blaming. Maybe not quite to the level of "But she wore a sexy skirt", but it's still all about trashing the victim and his motives.


Well, while bias on the OPs part is certainly possible, I'd say "One in particular never smiles, laughs, interacts with other players, and has treated me in a way I feel is disrespectful" and "there to beat every encounter as fast and lopsidedly as possible" along with "try to compete with one player to make it fun for the other 5 and for myself", seems a little more than "has a good build" and "doesn't like roleplaying".

Not interacting with other players goes far beyond "doesn't like RP". I'd read the powergaming part with a bit more leniency, since that's more a playstyle thing.

Whether I'd try to take steps to deal with it would depend on how much the problem players are making it not fun for others. And of course in the long run for myself. If it's not fun, I wouldn't do it.


Jiggy wrote:
For a crossblooded sorcerer, I recommend metamagic.

What's good for early metamagic? I'd like to get some use out of the 2nd or at least 3rd level slots.


Cuttler wrote:

a little trick that our cross-blooded sorcerer do is that each time he gets to the new spell level, he retrains his "Expended Arcana" feat in order to select a spell from the new spell level....

Of course, if you don't use retraining, it's harder...

That's a nice trick. I don't see anything in Expanded Arcana that keeps you from taking a spell from a level you don't already have spells known in. And at 50gp/level it's practically free. As long as you have the time.


Kajehase wrote:

Elizabeth Bear's Steles of the Sky - part three of her Central Asia fantasy trilogy.

Bansh is still best pony.

I thought I'd pre-ordered that. I need to check.

It's also made me want to play a horse archer somewhere.

1 to 50 of 11,113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.