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. 15,363 posts (16,162 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 15,363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

memorax wrote:

their the thing. I may not like every rpg on the market. I'm not telling people not to play them. Or assume that because I dislike a rpg then everyone else will or should. Too often in the hobby their is no middle ground. It's the same logic and I use the term loosely. When someone says a rpg will fail because they don't like it. I may dislike some design elements of Pathfinder. I don't think it's going to fail.

While I like complexity it's not what the current or even some of the older generation like imo. If they did companies like Hero Games would be making a profit. As it stands HG is not dead but on life support. There more uodates on 3pp support then any new product. Gurps while still supported by Steve Jackson Games relies more heavily on Munchkin for their profits.

Developers of tabletop rpgs have to go with the trends imo. If it's more complexity then they publish rpgs with that. If it's rules light the same. I don't think were every going to see a return to rules heavy rpgs. I'm not saying they will disappear. Just that for better or worse rules light rpgs are here to stay. Nor can I see a negative. Short of the rules light rpgs not being as comprehensive. Even then I sometimes wonder if they really are rules light. Instead of one big book like Hero System 5E they spread the rules over multiple sourcebooks. It feels lighter because it's more spread out.

I'd be really hesitant to ascribe failures (or slumps) in individual game systems to something as high level as rules heavy/rules light.

Over the same years Hero and GURPS haven't been doing great, Pathfinder has been growing. And SJG has been supported by Munchkin for years, IIRC. There may well be other trends or internal reasons that explain their decline.

Rules light games are here to stay, of course. They've been here to stay for decades. Depending on where you draw the line, the early 80s at least.

Rule heavy games are here to stay as well.

Different people will still like each and some will like both for different things. Which games are most popular will change and that may make it look like rules light is winning or rules heavy is, but I doubt it's nearly that simple.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

As pointed out above:-

Ring of Invisibity, 2nd ed wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisible state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.

First, 'At will' denotes activation by silent act of will.

Second, there is a 10% chance that any particular ring of invisibility is actually a ring of invisibility and inaudibility. This ring functions exactly the same way as the base ring, including activation, with the extra benefit that the wearer can't be heard.

'Speaking' breaks the ring! It breaks the 'inaudibility' part. 'Speaking' a command word would break it.

How can it be constructed in such a manner that the very act of activating it, breaks it?

The ring was always, most definately, activated by a silent act of will. No wonder Mark Seifter had assumed such for all these years. It's because be was right!

You say the command word and then go silent? After that any more speech turns off the inaudible feature. Or you can say the command word to turn both features off.

It's not how I would read it, but it's certainly a possible interpretation.

Edit: And especially if you're talking about AD&D in either edition, the rules were not written to the kind of legalistic level that supports "X always means this and therefore if they don't say X, we know it's Y."
I think that's a stretch in a lot of rules parsing even in 3.x which did try to do that with keywords and conditions and a much more structured approach, but it's insanity in AD&D


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Ckorik,

Pathfinder did not change the rules. It has been like this since at least 3.0 (as has been shown). What has changed is your understanding of the rules.

Ultimately, this only matters in PFS games. As you stated, if it is your home game you can house rule it.

BTW, it is still "at will" which means, as much as you want not 'by force of will'. People have been misunderstanding "at will" for decades too. This wouldn't be the first time I have heard someone say "at will" thinking it meant "by force of will".

They wrote 'On command...' for command word items.

They wrote 'At will...' for items activated by a silent act of will.

That's always seemed reasonable to me, but I'm not sure it was ever that codified.


I'll try to find it again tonight. It was a section on command words specifically. I was surprised when I found it.

I do know that most AD&D (even 2E) games were a mashup of actual rules, misunderstood rules, rules that were missed entirely, rules that had changed but the changes were missed and actual houserules. It's quite possible that you and I played one way and James played another, all of us thinking we were following the actual rules. Possibly with all of wrong.


_Ozy_ wrote:

How about I just post the text from 2nd edition:

Quote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisible state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.

And then the general text on the OPTIONAL RULES regarding command words:

Quote:

Command Words (Optional Rule)

Like rods and staves, wands can require the utterance of a command word (or phrase) to operate, and like these other items, the key is seldom found in the lock. The DM can rule that the command word is etched in magical writing on the wand (requiring a read magic to translate) or he can make the characters resort to such methods as commune spells and expensive sages. If you choose not to use this option, ignore references to command words in the item descriptions below— all items simply work.
Note, only rods, staves, and wands are called out as using command words, and only via an optional rule. All other magic items are at will unless otherwise specified. Can you post anything from 1st edition that would lead you to believe otherwise?

No. There's another section that at least strongly hints at it. I don't have the books on me right now, but look for command words in the 2E index - I think the section is actually in the PHB.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

That what it comes down Steve, I could give you my opinion of which series is constructed and which was rolled; but I would have to know that information up front.

If it happened that the first series was presented as a random series amount a group of random serieses(seresii?) then I wouldn't bat an eye.

I would. In fact I'd assume he was lying if he said that. While any particular series is equally likely, a series we all recognize as a meaningful pattern is not anywhere near so likely as a series we don't.
Law of Large Numbers disagrees.

Not given a single sample.

Sure, if he'd rolled a sufficiently large number of sets and picked the one he wanted to present that's a different story. But that's essentially the same as just making the series up.

And if you present a sufficiently large set of random series to actually generate a recognizable sequence of that length, you'll have a vastly larger number of non-meaningful sequences.

The law of large numbers accepts single cases. Because while you are presented with the one odd case in a series of random numbers, someone visiting LA will run into an old friend also visiting LA in a coffee shop at 2:42 pm and they will notice each other because they both ordered a tall skinny frap with no whip.

Different case.

If millions of people were posting strings of numbers asking "Is this random?", then yes, some of them wouldn't look random. But they're not.

You are confusing the law of large numbers with the law of truly large numbers.

Ok. Now I have no idea what you're talking about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:
strayshift wrote:


All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).

Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.

I agree. I don't think there's any correlation between "complex" and "sophisticated" or "simple" and the reverse.

There might be a very slight correlation for introductory games, but past that I've seen no such thing. If anything my tastes have shifted in the other direction as I aged and I've seen the same in others.

I certainly don't see why 5E would only be suitable for one-offs. There's certainly no reason I can see for not playing long campaigns in it. I can see why people who are focused on the build game might expect to exhaust the mechanical design space fairly quickly, but that's still going to take multiple campaigns, even without any new releases.

I could argue that complex crunch heavy systems are loved by munchkins and power gamers, while rules light systems appeal to roleplayers who are more interested in the personality of their characters than the stats, but that would be disingenuous and doesn't really fit my experience, though it comes closer than the reverse.
There is no One True gaming system. People have different tastes and enjoy different things. Many gamers are actually capable of liking more than one system or even style of game. This is a good thing.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

That what it comes down Steve, I could give you my opinion of which series is constructed and which was rolled; but I would have to know that information up front.

If it happened that the first series was presented as a random series amount a group of random serieses(seresii?) then I wouldn't bat an eye.

I would. In fact I'd assume he was lying if he said that. While any particular series is equally likely, a series we all recognize as a meaningful pattern is not anywhere near so likely as a series we don't.
Law of Large Numbers disagrees.

Not given a single sample.

Sure, if he'd rolled a sufficiently large number of sets and picked the one he wanted to present that's a different story. But that's essentially the same as just making the series up.

And if you present a sufficiently large set of random series to actually generate a recognizable sequence of that length, you'll have a vastly larger number of non-meaningful sequences.

The law of large numbers accepts single cases. Because while you are presented with the one odd case in a series of random numbers, someone visiting LA will run into an old friend also visiting LA in a coffee shop at 2:42 pm and they will notice each other because they both ordered a tall skinny frap with no whip.

Different case.

If millions of people were posting strings of numbers asking "Is this random?", then yes, some of them wouldn't look random. But they're not.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Anybody that thinks that the rich and powerful have no hold or influence on politicians is naive.

Even if you kill the rich and redistribute the wealth, the guys with the guns doing the redistribution and killing hold the power.

There is no perfect way - equitable government is like absolute zero - impossible to achieve.

The best you can do is whack a mole reform - avoid voting for either of the big two and make sure the reform parties hold the balance of power that way reforms are enacted. Not perfect but better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.

In a US style first-past-the-post system with no proportional representation, there is no balance of power and voting for reform parties is nearly pointless.

Edit: The best that can really be done electorally is to be involved on a local level and to try to shape the party in primaries. Waiting until the national general elections and complaining about the choices doesn't help.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

That what it comes down Steve, I could give you my opinion of which series is constructed and which was rolled; but I would have to know that information up front.

If it happened that the first series was presented as a random series amount a group of random serieses(seresii?) then I wouldn't bat an eye.

I would. In fact I'd assume he was lying if he said that. While any particular series is equally likely, a series we all recognize as a meaningful pattern is not anywhere near so likely as a series we don't.
Law of Large Numbers disagrees.

Not given a single sample.

Sure, if he'd rolled a sufficiently large number of sets and picked the one he wanted to present that's a different story. But that's essentially the same as just making the series up.

And if you present a sufficiently large set of random series to actually generate a recognizable sequence of that length, you'll have a vastly larger number of non-meaningful sequences.


BigDTBone wrote:

That what it comes down Steve, I could give you my opinion of which series is constructed and which was rolled; but I would have to know that information up front.

If it happened that the first series was presented as a random series amount a group of random serieses(seresii?) then I wouldn't bat an eye.

I would. In fact I'd assume he was lying if he said that. While any particular series is equally likely, a series we all recognize as a meaningful pattern is not anywhere near so likely as a series we don't.


Steve Geddes wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steve Gedes wrote:
The challenge is to try and reconcile that fact, with the intuitive (and this time correct) answer to the following question:
Thats easy. Its the odds of sequential patterns vs not sequential patterns. "pattern-less gobbledygook" is more likely because its a MUCH larger catagory of answers than a recognizable pattern, even though the specific pattern itself is just as likely.
It is relatively easy (with enough probability understanding) but it's more complicated than that. Your approach does lead to the correct explanation, but if we're going to use "patternless gobbledygook" as a criteria for determining the facts one step is going to be to define what we mean by "pattern-less gobbledygook". That's not as easy as it seems.
Especially since, unlike this example, sequences designed by people to appear random will often have less apparent pattern than truly random sequences.

What I like about this puzzle is that Ive seen the probability-educated arguing on the wrong side against the intuitively correct but maths-naive position. I used to post on a poker site (where people love showing how great at probability they are). There were pages and pages of responses to an OP which brought this up, laughing at him with an argument along the lines of:

"Any sequence is equally likely, you just assign some subjective "specialness" to the first series that isn't there. There's no reason to think either is more likely to be the random one."

It's not straightforward (in my opinion) to explain why we should have confidence that the first is manufactured and the second was the product of a random process. The initial thought (it's extraordinarily unlikely for the first sequence to occur randomly) is undercut by the identical observation about the second sequence.

Though it wouldn't be trivial to prove it, BNW's patternless gobbledygook is good heuristic as long as the pattern is obvious. As you get to longer sequences and subtler patterns the problem becomes harder.


Steve Geddes wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steve Gedes wrote:
The challenge is to try and reconcile that fact, with the intuitive (and this time correct) answer to the following question:
Thats easy. Its the odds of sequential patterns vs not sequential patterns. "pattern-less gobbledygook" is more likely because its a MUCH larger catagory of answers than a recognizable pattern, even though the specific pattern itself is just as likely.
It is relatively easy (with enough probability understanding) but it's more complicated than that. Your approach does lead to the correct explanation, but if we're going to use "patternless gobbledygook" as a criteria for determining the facts one step is going to be to define what we mean by "pattern-less gobbledygook". That's not as easy as it seems.

Especially since, unlike this example, sequences designed by people to appear random will often have less apparent pattern than truly random sequences.


Uwotm8 wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I can almost guarantee you that it will not be ruled to work like greater invisbility or just granting the "invisibile" condition.

If it did then, the ring of invisbility would be grossly over priced or the decoy ring would be vastly under priced. The second one is the more likely case.

Not really. The ring of invisibility can be used at any time any number of times. The decoy ring is action locked and is limited to just 3 rounds. It has no where near the usefulness of the former ring yet is still 12,000 gp. I'd put my money on greater invisibility. At best, you can gain two rounds after a standard action to perform shenanigans. That it's one more round than normal invisibility isn't a huge deal whatsoever and severely limits any kind of setup you can do prior.

Leaving cost and mechanics arguments aside, my big issue with that interpretation is that all the fluff in the description implies it's intended as a protection/escape item, not a trigger and attack item. You have to withdraw or be helpless to trigger it. Your friends can see you so they can help you.

For that purpose greater invisibility would be overkill.


Claxon wrote:

You'll take your chances with what?

The ring of invisibility is what it is, the fact that it has a 3 minute limitation to it isnt' necessarily a problem since you can reactivate it before it ends and continue using it without problem (except for expending a standard action once every 3 minutes).

The ring of invisibility is fine as long as you're not trying to use it for combat.

Or out of combat, if you don't want to be heard saying your command word every couple minutes.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Anyone who doesn't get it by 100 posts isn't likely going to get it.

That's fine, I'm just glad to see the majority of people here seem to grasp that just because detect spells CAN pinpoint (but not see) invisible things after multiple rounds doesn't mean that it is at all useful for actually doing so.

If an object or terrain feature is somehow made invisible, without any other protections, detect magic might well solve that puzzle. That's great! But against creatures it is at best a clumsy and desperate choice, at worst a downright lethal waste of time.

And that's all presuming you allow it to detect invisible auras (as per RAW). So if it's so dreadful even when you allow this, why bother disallowing it?

I think that's how this controversy has stayed comparatively quiet for so long. If you bother to actually read the spell, it's just not a good enough option to come up with any frequency.

In the time this thread has been open, you could have played a wizard to 3rd level and gotten a proper spell for the job.

As I suggested earlier, it's very good for some things. Guard duty. Watching for an invisible creature you expect to be coming. Warning you of the invisible guy in the room you're about to enter. That kind of thing.

In combat, targeting the invisible guy, not so much.

See invisible is obviously better, but has a cost, even if it's just using up the spell slot. Use detect magic to see if there is anything and See Invisibility or other more potent methods to locate and identify the mysterious thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Also, look at what Fergurg is actually writing. They're clearly and over the top victim blaming, and both claiming that if you resist you should be shot and then accusing a black guy that teaches their kids basically the same thing of "hating everyone not of their own race".

Wrong again. Yes, if a person is resisting arrest, the police need to stop it from happening. If a person tries to grab the cop's gun, that is grounds for stopping him. The cop does not have an obligation to not protect his life.

And as for accusing the black guy, I quoted what he said, He said he HATED this country and its countrymen. I asked him why he chooses to stay, given his HATRED (caps were also his).

And as for victim-blaming, is it your opinion that a person making an assertion of being a victim should be believed at all times? Because asking questions about these things is often how the truth comes out (e.g. Duke University, Rolling Stone). And if a person making an accusation should be automatically believed, would it not make sense to extend that expectation to white cops or Hispanic neighborhood watchmen who say, "He attacked me."?

No. My opinion is that such claims shouldn't be investigated by the accused's friends and co-workers and left up to the local prosecutor, who needs the close cooperation of the police force to do his job.

I also think that cameras will help and that there need to be other reforms to police training and practice - more community involvement and less reliance on dominance by force.

In the meantime, knowing that the police often lie upon the stand and will generally be believed, until things actually change, I'm going to err on the side of believing the victims, not the killers.


Electric Wizard wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

True story time, kids!

Our 7th-grade teacher was trying to teach us probability. I was a well-known wise-ass in class. (Go figure!)

He asked 3 kids to volunteer to flip coins in front of the class and record their results on the board so we could see both trends (5 heads in a row, etc.) and overall probabilities (how many heads, how many tails). Of course I *had* to volunteer, and the first thing I asked was, "What do I write if the coin lands on its side?"

To which I got the response, "Shut up, NH."

So I dutifully went up, wrote down, "Heads" and "Tails" on the board, and flipped the coin.

And it bounced off the carpet, up against the wall, and ended up cleanly standing on its edge, leaning against the wall.

And the teacher gave me a detention, figuring I *must* have done it intentionally.

Yeah, right.

That is a great story! Did your teacher give you "Actual real world coins"? Or harvy dents?
It's been a few decades, but my recollection is that he actually pulled together his massive salary and came up with three real live U.S. quarters for us to flip...

I'm just saying, be careful. It has be strongly asserted in this thread that "actual real world coins"

have Pr(Heads)=Pr(Tails)= 1/2, leaving no room for 'edges', or any bias.
So, if you Observed a coin landing on it's edge, then it could not have been an "actual real world coin."

No. You assumed that, without any justification when replying to my post.

I just didn't bother to correct you. It was a trap.:)

Mind you, I'd expect it to be pretty close to a 50/50 chance, with the chance of an edge landing being very low, but affected by the surface it's landing on. It might be possible to manufacture a coin with skewed odds, but I wouldn't expect it to be by much.

A skilled flipper could probably also influence the chances of heads or tails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
But you know what Rosa Parks didn't do? She didn't yell, "Burn this b~*$* down!"

What she did say was, "It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand."

So what she did was more along the lines of not getting out of the street while holding some cheap cigars...

Oh, wait.

I guess the bus driver should have shot her, right?

Only if she was running at the bus driver, trying to take his gun.

She was breaking the law. She refused to move and was arrested.

According to some here, any resistance, even passive disobedience to the arresting officer, justifies beating the criminal while yelling "Stop resisting". Throw in a "Stop reaching for my gun" and you can shoot them too.

Of course, it was a different era back then. The cops didn't need to make excuses, they just waited for the all-white jury to let them off. Nowadays the same thing happens, but the legal contortions have gotten more complicated.

Who here has said that? Who here has said anything even remotely close to that? I'd love to see a quote.

Of course no one says that outright, but if the cop says they were resisting, it always seems to be fine.


Freehold DM wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
The time to worry about your rights is when you're safe. Until things change significantly, when you're dealing with a cop, worry about not getting shot. (Especially if you're not caucasian.)

Pretty much this.

I've told my son a few simple things.

The police are not your friends. They are not there to help you. Because they deal with criminals who mostly look like you? To them youre just another criminal. If you can avoid them STAY AWAY.

If you are confronted. Be calm. be polite and comply.

If they want you to jump up and down on one leg and recite the our father? Comply.

If they want you to lay face down on the dirty sidewalk with your arms spread out! Comply.

Comply. Comply. Comply.

Because if you do not? THEY WILL KILL YOU. and then say it was your fault because you have no true right to exist as a human being. And unfortunately most of this country agrees with them.

So Swallow your pride. Comply and Live.

I've been telling him this since he was 10. He's going to be 13 in a few weeks. The amount of pure HATRED I feel for my countrymen and this country in general because I have to prepare him like this at such a young age is maddening. But at the end of the day I'd rather have him humiliated, but home and alive than proud and in a graveyard in a pine box.

I know that there are some of you who are going to be quick to say I'm an awful parent or am teaching him hatred. Some of you have voiced this before. To you I'm going to say one thing: When you are raising a young black male in this country and have also grown up as a young black male in this country THEN MAYBE I'll take seriously anything that you have to say. IF not Then youre just talking about a bunch of things that you know next to NOTHING about.

Not being snarky, genuine question. Since you have your hatred of your fellow countrymen and this country, to the point where you dismiss the views of everybody that is not
...

At this point, flag it and move on.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
But you know what Rosa Parks didn't do? She didn't yell, "Burn this b~*$* down!"

What she did say was, "It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand."

So what she did was more along the lines of not getting out of the street while holding some cheap cigars...

Oh, wait.

I guess the bus driver should have shot her, right?

Only if she was running at the bus driver, trying to take his gun.

She was breaking the law. She refused to move and was arrested.

According to some here, any resistance, even passive disobedience to the arresting officer, justifies beating the criminal while yelling "Stop resisting". Throw in a "Stop reaching for my gun" and you can shoot them too.

Of course, it was a different era back then. The cops didn't need to make excuses, they just waited for the all-white jury to let them off. Nowadays the same thing happens, but the legal contortions have gotten more complicated.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
What about creatures that have detect magic constant, like, say a sprite? If I have a sprite familiar, he shouldn't have to concentrate three rounds to point to a square, say "he's over there!" and I drop a fireball, no?

Sprite has detect evil/good, not detect magic, right?

But assuming such creatures, they would still need to concentrate to pick out the details. They're always getting the first round info, but have to focus on a specific thing to get more.


Electric Wizard wrote:
Krensky wrote:

* Throws nerf balls at jeff.

What did you say about engaging with the crazy up thread? Huh?

We are actually making a real joke about self-reference.

That you don't know about such a thing is not your fault, it's your teacher's fault.
They didn't know how to educate someone like you..

I'm not making such a joke. I'm laughing at you.


Electric Wizard wrote:
Everything I have posted in this thread is False.

Even this?


Electric Wizard wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
No, just accepting standardized rules for statistical tests. So, again, if we ""assume ANY random coin then the likelihood of a weighted coin is extremely remote"" . So remote that the bias introduced will be 2 or 3 orders of magnitude below significant figures in the system. If the weighted coin distribution itself is weighted then that needs to be included in the premise of the statistical test, which it was not.
Quote:

You're talking about something intimately related, but different.

This is called choosing a Prior. You've chosen one that appears Gaussian ("likelihood of a weighted coin is extremely remote...")
and that suits yourself, and makes your post most-correct. (<-- you're trying to force a particular world.)
A Prior *must* be picked, so this is fine. But realize what you've done.
Indeed, circumstantial rules must be established. So I choose those which most closely mimick the world around me. It also mirrors how the question was framed.
Plato said, IT'S A TRAP !

Of course it's a trap. We all knew it was a trap.

But it's a dumb trap.

So here's the question: Assuming a coin drawn at random from your change jar and observing a series of (H,H,H,T,H,H,H,H), what are the odds of the next flip being H?
Actual real world coins, not something created by the experimenter to trick you and not a two headed (or tailed) coin, because you've observed both results.

"Actual real world coins" --> Interpretation, "I have a fair coin." ( You've forced a value for Pr(Heads). )

This is a very easy question to answer.
IT'S 1/2 BECAUSE YOU FORCED THAT VALUE ON US.

Which is only a slight stretch from just saying "coin". Most people aren't going to assume some hypothetical coin with a 90% chance of landing one side - because such things essentially don't exist. Two headed coin? Sure. Maybe even a coin with a weight difference enough to make a statistically significant difference in probability.

BTW: From my first response to your "trap":

Quote:


Nah, bet on heads. The coin's obviously rigged.

Or you're in a Stoppard play.

Walk away is probably a better response than putting money down. Anyone asking you to bet on coin flips is probably running a con anyway.


Jiggy wrote:

Ooooh, interesting point on needing line of sight to ID the aura's school. Okay, so I guess how it goes down is this:

Round 1: Determine that there is, in fact, magic somewhere in that 60ft cone.
Round 2: Determine that it's a single aura.
Round 3: Determine the location of the aura, and speculate as to what could be producing an unidentified aura in a space where you don't see anything. ;)

It could be a lingering aura from something previous.


Electric Wizard wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Quote:

You're talking about something intimately related, but different.

This is called choosing a Prior. You've chosen one that appears Gaussian ("likelihood of a weighted coin is extremely remote...")
and that suits yourself, and makes your post most-correct. (<-- you're trying to force a particular world.)
A Prior *must* be picked, so this is fine. But realize what you've done.
Indeed, circumstantial rules must be established. So I choose those which most closely mimick the world around me. It also mirrors how the question was framed.

IT'S A TRAP !

(and you lost.)

Of course it's a trap. We all knew it was a trap.

But it's a dumb trap.

So here's the question: Assuming a coin drawn at random from your change jar and observing a series of (H,H,H,T,H,H,H,H), what are the odds of the next flip being H?
Actual real world coins, not something created by the experimenter to trick you and not a two headed (or tailed) coin, because you've observed both results.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

I see 2 groups. Group 1 says "the victims shouldn't have to do anything, and saying they should do anything is victim blaming" where as group 2 is more concerned with keeping people alive than they are with deciding who is to blame when people get killed. Group 1 might be "right" but I can't help but think I side more with group 2.

The time to worry about your rights is when you're safe. Until things change significantly, when you're dealing with a cop, worry about not getting shot. (Especially if you're not caucasian.)

Of course in some cases you don't get your rights back once you've given them up.

Example, a cop can't search your car (under most circumstances) without a warrant or your permission, but he can demand your permission and if you let him, even if you only let him because you're worried about it not being safe to refuse, then whatever he finds is admissible.

More generally and probably more importantly, while Group 2's stance may be the more practical one when you're in the situation, it's very easy to turn into victim-blaming - You didn't do the right thing, therefore you got shot/dead/beaten. Or even, you got shot/dead/beaten, therefore you must not have done the right thing.
The attitude among cops that citizens need to behave correctly towards them and can be forced to if they don't and the lack of consequences for when that goes wrong may lead to more deaths and abuse than Group 1's policies.

Add to that, while it may be a good plan on an individual level to know how to manage police encounters in the safest way possible, police often deal with people who haven't or can't master that skill. Whether they're kids or mentally handicapped or just in the middle of a crisis they're not trained for. The police need to be able to handle people in bad situations without using force, except when it's actually necessary. They need to be able to deescalate. Sometimes that may require backing off, if there's no imminent threat except them.


Claxon wrote:

With the unfortunate consolidation of move silently and hide into stealth in the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder and without spells being properly adjusted you do end up with odd situations that according to the rules creatures not attempting to use sight to locate a creature are still affected by invisibility. However, it is very reasonable for a GM to rule that it only affects attempts to locate by sight not by sound.

Which is why I think even invisiblility has this:

Quote:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.
Basically, a DC 20 perception check lets you know an invisible creature is somehwere near you. Whether that is due to sound or some other 6th sense is unknown. But you get a chance to detect it regardless.

Which is annoying, because with a high stealth character, taking that as RAW, it's easier to notice he's there when he's invisible than when he's not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Given the cute assumption that it costs you nothing to be religious, Pascal was completely right.

And the assumption that God will accept you even though you're just faking it for the wager. As well as that the basic Christian assumption about God/Heaven/Hell is the only possibility. What about a God who rewards freethinkers and punishes people who pretend to religion? Or a God who punishes those who believe in other Gods more than he punished atheists?

It's all so deeply rooted in a particular Christianity, that it doesn't make sense out of that context.


wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Gauss wrote:

GreyWolfLord, you seem to be misunderstanding the point. It is not that detect magic is being compared against the stealth or invisibility. It is ignoring it altogether because it does not need line of sight. It doesn't even need the standard line of effect.

Magic radiates an aura that is detectable by Detect Magic. Show me where invisibility counters that statement or show me where stealth counters that statement.

You cannot because no such counter-statement exists and since Detect Magic does not need line of sight or line of effect (except for it's own limitations) it can still see that magic aura. Does it see the creature? NO. Do you know where the aura is? Yes, after 3 rounds.

But you will know immediately that something is there. That there is magic in the area you're targeting. Which is useful on its own, even without pinpointing the aura.

Do you only detect on your turn? How does this work with moving targets? Would you know immediately if something invisible moved out of the area you're targeting? What if something moved in? Or through?
Could you use Detect Magic to watch a doorway and know if something invisible went through it, even if it didn't end its move in your targeted area?

The spell is always on until concentration is over. For moving targets if they don't stay in the cone for 3 rounds you can not pinpoint their square. If they move within the cone they are pinpointed. Moving around within the cone is a nonfactor. Moving through the cone means you know an aura was there, but that is all you know. Someone could have walked through your cone, stepped into it, and teleported away, and so on.

Still very useful for guard duty or if you suspect there might be something invisible around: Once you know it's here, you can take other measures, sound the alarm, cast see invisible, faerie fire, throw a lot of flour around, whatever is appropriate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
A lot of [fairly sarcastic, but sometimes sincere] incredulity regarding my previous post: this is why I wrote 'my experience' and 'my opinion'.

I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with your opinion and your experience is what it is but it does come off as 'Advice for white people, by white people'

While it's certainly good to not freak out when dealing with cops and also to have respect for authority (even if that respect is more the fear based respect you would give to say, a potentially rabid animal)a lot of times when you are black in the U.S. that s~+! doesn't even mean anything in regards to protecting you.

Like, say, when some cops jump you from behind and crack your skull open before beating you half to death without ever saying anything or interacting with you in anyway(personal experience).

In that case the only reaction you can even have is to spray blood everywhere.

It also comes off as "It must be black people's fault. If they behaved properly, cops wouldn't have to beat them and shoot them."

Andrew may not have meant that, but in response to a discussion about cop violence towards black people, it's hard to read it otherwise.


Gauss wrote:

GreyWolfLord, you seem to be misunderstanding the point. It is not that detect magic is being compared against the stealth or invisibility. It is ignoring it altogether because it does not need line of sight. It doesn't even need the standard line of effect.

Magic radiates an aura that is detectable by Detect Magic. Show me where invisibility counters that statement or show me where stealth counters that statement.

You cannot because no such counter-statement exists and since Detect Magic does not need line of sight or line of effect (except for it's own limitations) it can still see that magic aura. Does it see the creature? NO. Do you know where the aura is? Yes, after 3 rounds.

But you will know immediately that something is there. That there is magic in the area you're targeting. Which is useful on its own, even without pinpointing the aura.

Do you only detect on your turn? How does this work with moving targets? Would you know immediately if something invisible moved out of the area you're targeting? What if something moved in? Or through?
Could you use Detect Magic to watch a doorway and know if something invisible went through it, even if it didn't end its move in your targeted area?


Cam James wrote:

The time spent rolling dice is a bigger issue i will bring up again.

Say you have a climb modifier of +10 before FCB.
Normally you write:
(dice=Climb)1d20+13(/climb)
Then hit preview to see your result. Then post whether you passed or failed.
A 3 step process.

With this you would have to do one of two things:
1: Write:
(dice=climb)2d20(/dice)
Hit preview, choose a number and manually add in +10 and post whether you passed or failed.
2:Write:
(dice=climb)2d20+10(/dice)
Hit preview, choose a number and manually subtract the other, then post whether you passed or failed.
A 6 step process.

The first and original method is quicker, requires less mental math (try adding 32 to everything) and is displayed in a easier-to-read-at-a-glance format.
The second one is just extra work. And its more cluttered to read.

If you are rolling physical dice, then you just doubled the amount of work you have to do (coming from a Warhammer 40k Orc player here ^_-

Actually I'd just do:

Higher of:
(dice=Climb)1d20+10(/climb)
(dice=Climb)1d20+10(/climb)

A little more work when you're using actual dice, but on line, there's no reason not to make the computer do the work for you.


Avatar-1 wrote:

There's a distinct difference between the ring of invisibility example and the hat of disguise example.

With the ring of invisibility, you put it on, activate it, and you're invisible. There's no other possibilities - you're either invisible, or you're not. It's active, or it's not.

With the hat of disguise, you put it on, activate it, determine the disguise you want, and it's on. Its core intent isn't a binary choice like invisibility.

When you have a wondrous item for effects like these, the intention behind having "command-word activated" seems to be to either turn the effect on or turn it off, even while you're wearing it.

If it were "continuous", it would make sense for the effect to be always-on when you put it on, and then turned off when you take it off.

To have it ruled the way it is per the FAQ will break effects on other items just like this, on a case-by-case basis.

I don't think it really breaks anything, regardless of how irritating I find it. There's obviously some way you tell the hat what you want to look like, so I'd assume you can just do that again every <10 minutes to keep the same disguise up. Maybe there are different on and off commands and using the on one while it's still going retains the current disguise.

Though honestly, the disguise command itself has to include some kind of mental image. You can't reasonably describe a complete disguise as a standard action - you'd have to picture it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarinia Faynrik wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed a post and the replies to it. We are not okay with the framing of posts that attempt to speak in place of other users intentions or feelings and we do not consider the revealing of contents from private messages to be in the community's best interest. Additionally, if you are noticing posts that seem "off" or violate any of our Community Guidelines please flag them and move on. Do not respond to them.

Additionally, because several longer posts were removed because they were quoting/in response to removed posts, if you would like any of this text recovered, please ping community@paizo.com.

So i cant let my Fiance speak for me when i'm to shy or paranoid to? I have high paranoia and bipolar disorder. So i cant always bring myself to talk and he talks for me when i'm to paranoid about speaking. -lets out a sigh- I dont even get to see the responses either.

Not everyone is a strong enough person to always speak for themselves....

I just wanted to say that for someone like me especially if it has to do with me. I would be more comfortable knowing what was said before it was removed....

I dont know if i will speak up again in the forums knowing how paranoid i am and that i wont be accepted. Especially since me and my fiance like to keep our accounts as something that is you know seperate. Especially since he phrases things differently then i do and so forth.

It took me alot of courage to even create my own account and speak up and ask questions. Not knowing what was said but knowing something was said about something having to do with me. It doesn't make me feel comfortable and welcome. Infact it makes my paranoia quite high wire.

I wish everyone a nice and happy day and life for i dont know if i will be posting anymore in the forums. I hope relationships surgeries or whatever you do to make you happy goes smoothly and well and inevetilbly lead to what will lead you to a...

Don't go away. Please. We're really pretty friendly.

Contact Chris and ask what happened. I'm sure they didn't realize it was your fiance or that he was posting for you because you were too shy/paranoid. From outside and not knowing the relationship it looked like he'd had a private PM/email conversation with you and then posted parts of it, probably without you knowing. The moderation seemed like it was intended to protect your privacy, not as an attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:
I think that they went overboard because he had been picked up for this and other offenses so many times, that's the only thing I could think of, because you are correct, just write a ticket and move along. Unless they know he hasn't paid the tickets in the past. Still, THIS particular case there shouldve been an indictment, no doubt. I wouldve wanted to see the officer go to trial.

But there won't be. And you're happy to dismiss all the other cases where there isn't convenient video to convince you it's over the line.

If the system can fail in a case this obvious, are you sure it was just in the other cases?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

That hat is not always being used. You have to choose to use it, so it has a duration. It was even one of the examples used in the FAQ.

Not liking it does not make it "not a rule".

Didn't say it was. Even said a post above "that it had been ruled that way".

It being a rule doesn't mean I have to like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
archmagi1 wrote:
Its pricing pretty much hits directly on it being command word rather than continuous. 1800gp is the 1*1*1800 for command word items vs the 3000gp for a continuous 10min/level 1st level spell item (1*1*2000*1.5).

Yeah, some of us just find the idea of a limited duration, unlimited usage item of this nature kind of silly.

Since you can effectively use it continuously, it should be continuous.


Faelyn wrote:

I agree that Hat of Disguise really should be considered a continuous effect item with a command word to turn off/on or change appearance. It's not an overly powerful item as the disguise can be detected with Detect Magic...

If it were only 10 minutes per disguise, then the item becomes pointless in my opinion.

This is the same argument with all the items that use this mechanic and I agree with it, but it's been ruled the other way.

It's not completely pointless, just irritating. You can command the hat to reactivate and you can even do so before the duration expires, so you can stay disguised.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:


This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.

If that's the only question, the answer is no. It's not acceptable to automatically assume that.

There are plenty of police killings, even of blacks, where the question doesn't arise because the killing is clearly justified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Protoman wrote:
If it's a continuous effect, how do you change the appearance the hat of disguise is granting?

Take it off and put it back on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."

This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.

Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.

For the first part, it fits in fine with the racism theory, once you get past the "racism = hatred" thing.

If you're dealing with the "black males are likely to be violent, dangerous thugs" racist stereotype, then it makes more sense. This attitude is pervasive in media and in cop culture especially. It's not surprising to find it even among black cops. Which isn't the same as being a "race traitor".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."

This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.

Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.

BTW: You want a conspiracy theory? I got one, and I don't think it's too far-fetched: Garner's legal issues, and the reason he knew that particular cop, were related to not paying cigarette taxes. The mayor of NYC loves himself some taxes. The people who elected him, the same people who would be part of the grand jury pool, elected a man who campaigned on raising taxes.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a "Business man didn't pay the money we wanted him to pay. Sure was a tragic 'accident' what happened to him. If only he had paid, that could have been avoided."

Are you seriously suggesting the Mayor put out a hit on a street loose cigarette sales guy?

Including a "And make it look like an accident."


Grand Magus wrote:

Here is the deal:

Flip a coin. If it comes up Heads you get $1, but if it comes up Tails you lose $1.
After 1000 flips, how many dollars will you have?

Assuming it's not the rigged coin in the earlier question: None. +/- a few.


graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that for weapons, and armor (and gauntlets, boots and helmets? Only if they have weapon bonuses?), you can add any number of powers, like casting Shield of Faith and Silence x/day, with no added cost for putting multiple such powers on one item?

Edit: It's not entirely clear to me whether the base weapon bonus counts as the first and all further abilities count as "additional" or the bonus doesn't count and the first such added ability is normal price and only the following ones are multiplied.

As I see it, weapons are neutral abilities. Any extras are added as if the weapon part isn't there much like the static abilities like glamered add set costs. So for Shield of Faith and Silence x/day, I'd say the first is normal cost and the second is as per multiple abilities, the weapon enchants not being counted.

"Should these abilities be added to the weapon as bonus equivalents, rather than with the normal magic item cost guidelines?": You have abilities NOW that just cost a set amount of GP and don't cost pluses, so why should these abilities be forces into a plus?

True. Though following the actual rules, I'd look first for weapons with similar abilities and price according to those, rather than blindly following the formulas. I'd have to look more closely to see whether these abilities more resemble standard weapon bonus abilities or those few weapon abilities which are fixed price.


Fergurg wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Remember as well, just because the Constitution says you don't have to show the cop ID, doesn't mean you won't get shot for not doing so. The place to insist on your rights is not on the spot, but later on after you've voluntarily ceded them.
Just a minor correction here: the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, you are required to show ID when asked by a cop. That is because the right to remain silent only applies to questions that, by answering them, you may incriminate yourself (like "Why are you here?"), and your identity is considered to never be incriminating.

I assume you're referring to the Hiibel decision? Even under that you only have to identify yourself if you're reasonably suspected of having committed a crime. Or driving a car or some such thing where you need to prove you're licensed for that, obviously

If they just walk up to you on the street and demand ID, you don't have to comply. If they arrest you or even detain you, they can search you or require id, otherwise you can stop discussing it with them and leave.

The most obvious counter is that you're not required to carry ID and thus not showing this ID that you don't have cannot be a crime. If you're not carrying ID under those circumstance where they have the right to demand identification, you are required to tell them who you are.


Ravingdork wrote:
To be clear, weapons do NOT take up a slot. Magical item slots are clearly established within the rules.

Then, according to the guidelines, those powers need the x2 slotless multiplier.

Note as well that the 1.5 multiplier for added abilities does not say "Only for slotted items", so according to the guidelines, it should apply as well.

Standard weapon abilities obviously don't follow this pattern, since they have their own pricing guidelines.

In fact, the whole approach to this question may be wrong. Should these abilities be added to the weapon as bonus equivalents, rather than with the normal magic item cost guidelines?


graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Isn't that "1.5 x cost" for multiple abilities rule only really there for slotted items, like headbands and rings?

A weapon is essentially a slotted item.

You're not paying the x2 cost for "No space limitation"

It's not really the same though. You can have a dozen+ weapons ready in that 'slot'. An alchemist could have 4 gauntlets, 4 1 handed double weapons (Taiaha) or 8 weapons, blade boots, armor spikes, boulder helmet, Barbazu beard, tail blade, sea knives... So 20 items filling a slot?

A little more complicated, though really cases where you've got more than a couple weapons in use at a time are going to be rare. Some of those you're suggesting are also taking up actual slots (gauntlets, boots, helmets)

But if you want to argue that weapons are effectively slotless, then they need the x2 multiplier for being slotless. Otherwise, extra powers need the x1.5 multiplier. Possibly extra powers get the x1.5 anyway, though it doesn't seem really necessary for unslotted items, since there's no disadvantage for having 2.
But it should apply to the sword: In most cases, a sword with 2 powers is going to be more useful than two swords with one of the powers apiece.

I think what I'd argue is that they don't fall under the slot or no slot categories. It's a weapon.

As far as actual slots, I'd point to armor/shields. Weapon enchants don't affect the slot abilities in a negative way. I don't see why that would differ if it is instead gauntlets, boots or helmets.

I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that for weapons, and armor (and gauntlets, boots and helmets? Only if they have weapon bonuses?), you can add any number of powers, like casting Shield of Faith and Silence x/day, with no added cost for putting multiple such powers on one item?

Edit: It's not entirely clear to me whether the base weapon bonus counts as the first and all further abilities count as "additional" or the bonus doesn't count and the first such added ability is normal price and only the following ones are multiplied.


graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Isn't that "1.5 x cost" for multiple abilities rule only really there for slotted items, like headbands and rings?

A weapon is essentially a slotted item.

You're not paying the x2 cost for "No space limitation"

It's not really the same though. You can have a dozen+ weapons ready in that 'slot'. An alchemist could have 4 gauntlets, 4 1 handed double weapons (Taiaha) or 8 weapons, blade boots, armor spikes, boulder helmet, Barbazu beard, tail blade, sea knives... So 20 items filling a slot?

A little more complicated, though really cases where you've got more than a couple weapons in use at a time are going to be rare. Some of those you're suggesting are also taking up actual slots (gauntlets, boots, helmets)

But if you want to argue that weapons are effectively slotless, then they need the x2 multiplier for being slotless. Otherwise, extra powers need the x1.5 multiplier. Possibly extra powers get the x1.5 anyway, though it doesn't seem really necessary for unslotted items, since there's no disadvantage for having 2.
But it should apply to the sword: In most cases, a sword with 2 powers is going to be more useful than two swords with one of the powers apiece.

1 to 50 of 15,363 << 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.