thejeff's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

buddahcjcc wrote:

Ive seen some hideously broken Gunslingers for instance (I was a mage casting a 6D6 fireball, the Gunslinger was using alchemic rounds or something and douing about twice my max damage - per shot), Magus who somehow got more HP than the Barbarian in the party at the time -.-

Yeah, guns are extremely unbalanced. How good or weak they are depends on "tech level" and wealth far far more than any other combat style or weapon, and the random misfire chances are completely arbitrary and aren't felt if they never happen.

Being able to full attack touch attack and deadly aim it is just insane.

Is it just me, or can a Gunslinger actually get a full attack with a gun? I mean I don't see any way to speed up loading a musket quicker than a move action.

I could see how the Gatling rifle could be powerful if there aren't reload costs associated with it.

....But then again, imagine bringing a gun to a swordfight.

OT, but Muskets start as a full round to reload.

Musket Master archetype gets Rapid Reload at first level, bringing it to a standard action. At 3rd level he gets Fast Musket, bringing it to a move action. Using Alchemical Cartridges reduces that to a free action.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

Well, I think there was an out for that. Normally, they'd inform the agency when they were seizing a journalist's records. They would not inform the suspected journalist. In this case, they didn't have a particular suspect, so informing the agency risked informing the leaker. I believe there was language about "not compromising the investigation" in the policy.

I don't pretend to have any insight into the world of government leakers and the press, but this doesn't make much sense in relation to what the New Yorker dude said above:

"As Lynn Oberlander, The New Yorker’s general counsel, pointed out in a post this week, the Justice Department’s own guidelines call for the government to inform news organizations when it issues such subpoenas (it was the phone companies that received the actual request in this case), allowing journalists the chance to contest them in court."

If the DOJ informs the agency, and not the journalist, then how does the journalist get a chance to contest the subpoena in court?

I'm not sure. I may have lost track. Was this a subpoena for existing records or to collect them ongoing? So much of the coverage of this is so vague about what actually happened. It's all about how it's playing and what the latest shrill accusations or lame defenses are.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Azure is correct, although they do explicitly state that they are eligible for retraining :) But basically, for humans, it's 8 for youth and they give a +XdY depending on the class, much like PC classes get when they reach adulthood.

Oooh. What do they say about non-humans? Does this address the endless debate about elven childhood?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

3) You probably wouldn't call them saving throws anymore, considering you're not throwing any dice around. On the flip side of your argument, leaving things the way they are contributes heavily to the "godmode wizard" phenomena that many people complain about.

Mechanically there's no difference between the attacker rolling a die to beat the defender's defense value and the defender rolling a die to beat the attacker's DC.

If you want a saving throw related reason for "godmode wizard", it was the change from 2E to 3.0: In 2E, your saves actually got better as you went up levels. Even against spells cast by high level wizards. High level magic was powerful, but not likely to work against real opponents. There was no way to boost the DC, essentially.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I, of course, don't believe a word Obama says, but this:

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

does seem to indicate that the DOJ would abide by their own (alleged) guidelines when seizing journalists' phone records and inform the news agency rather than just doing it on the dl.

Well, I think there was an out for that. Normally, they'd inform the agency when they were seizing a journalist's records. They would not inform the suspected journalist. In this case, they didn't have a particular suspect, so informing the agency risked informing the leaker. I believe there was language about "not compromising the investigation" in the policy.

But yeah, in general it's hard to take this administration as a model for openness and transparency.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

Daethor wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.

Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.

It doesn't matter to me who rolls or which direction the numbers go, but IIRC the part of that change that bothered me was that it became more ubiquitous. Every attack spell worked the same way: roll vs defense. As opposed to 3.x and earlier where some had saving throws, some always worked, some were touch attacks,etc.

Note: I only played one test campaign of 4E early on, so that may have changed.

Looking at it it looks a lot different, in practice it is cosmetic. Most classic spells still do half damage on a miss etc. True some don't always hit but some are still always damaging.

Thinking about it a little more: I think I like casting having a fundamentally different mechanic than physical combat. It gives a different feel to the two things if they work differently.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

Alexander Augunas wrote:

Daethor wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.

Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.

I'm curious as well, especially considering that its not a hard house rule that doesn't really change the game much. Add 10 to your current saving throw bonus and subtract 10 from all saving throw DCs in the game. Boom. Done.

I will concede that the current set-up (players roll to hit and roll to protect themselves from big bad attacks) is designed mostly to put the thematic tension into the players' hands. They're the only rolling to determine their character's fate. But rolling all offensive attacks against a static defensive number is a much more elegant design in my opinion, even if it does take away a small bit of player accountability.

Of course you could reverse that and say that "Players roll to dodge blows and to see if their big spells affect the enemy" would be designed to put the thematic tension in players' hands.

If you really wanted to do that, you could put almost all rolls in the players' hands. They roll to attack the NPCs' static defenses and roll to resist or avoid the NPCs' static attacks. The math works the same way.

Actually, there wouldn't be any tension because the player himself (or herself) could never miss; whether or not a character connected with an ability would be entirely dependent on the NPC's skills and luck and the player would have no accountability. With rolling, you can always roll a natural 1 and bungle your own attack attempt; if your target is rolling dice to protect itself from you, success or failure is solely dependent on that opponent's abilities and luck and the attacker has no accountability. The same thing happens with spells like fireball; once the spell is launched, it automatically goes off. it automatically goes off. There is no accountability on the part of the mage who cast the spell; only on his target and their abilities.

Wait. I just reversed the two. Currently the attacker rolls to see if the attack hits and the target of the spell rolls to see if he resisted. Switching that to defender rolls for martial attacks and caster rolls for spells doesn't remove all the tension. If the thesis is true, it drops the tension for martial attacks and raises it for spells. OTOH, it also raises it when you're being attacked in combat and drops it when attacked by magic.

The current system only maximizes it if you assume the players are making the physical attacks and receiving the magical ones.

And making the players roll for everything, all their attacks and defenses, physical or magical, would be best because it puts all the accountability on them.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I'm surprised that so many people mentioned the dislike of encounters that are too underpowered or overpowered.

What happened to the concept of verisimilitude? Why is it that when we're first level, the world seems overflowing with goblins, kobolds, and orcs, but when we're tenth level, we never see those anymore but the world is overflowing with giants and outsiders and dragons?

How strange such a world must be...

For me, the concept of verisimilitude requires that noob PCs could run into impossible battles. Why should they be immune to getting eaten by trolls when every other NPC in the world has to worry about that? No, the troll doesn't need to kill the PCs - hopefully they are smart enough to run away or maybe even figure out a way to beat it with good strategy and tactics, preferably luring it onto a battlefield of their choice.

It also requires that superstar PCs can on occasion run into goblins. Why should they be unable to ever find the enemies that so plagued their entire world just a few months ago? It sure makes them feel pretty good when they remember "Wow, not that long ago this battle would have been scary, now look at us! Took us just one round to mop up these weaklings. We Rock!"

Best part, it makes the world seem more realistic, well, you know, for a fantasy world and all. That's what verisimilitude is all about, after all.

Because it means the only overpowered encounters you run into are ones you can avoid or escape or talk your way out of or something. Real versimilitude would require that sometimes the dragon just swoops down and kills and eats the low level party on its low level quest. Bang. Game over. You're dead.

They have to be carefully set up to allow the PCs a chance to survive. Often higher level things are some combination of sneakier, more perceptive, faster and able to one-shot PCs. Not good when it comes to avoiding or running away.

Running into much weaker things can be fine once in awhile. The "We Rock!" bit is good to have, though it can also be reached by having the formerly terrifying things as mooks for the BBEG. OTOH, even trivial combats eat real time. The lack of too many of them can be handwaved as even the goblins being smart enough not to take the obviously more powerful party on.

Plus you've moved on to more dangerous areas, filled with the deadlier threats and less of the weak monsters. And you're seeking out the strong ones.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

How much does a shot of vodka cost at a bar vs buying a bottle of the same at the store?
I bet the ratio isn't far off. Beers aren't so bad.

Besides, if the theaters want to subsidize movie costs with drinks and food I don't buy anyway, I'm all for it. Cheaper for me. :)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

DM Wellard wrote:

Shadowborn wrote:

Granted, I haven't spent a dime on concessions since the 90s, but I still glance up at them on occasion to goggle at the prices and remind myself why I smuggle snacks and drinks into movies.

According to the Cinema Trade they make no profit from seats and have to rely on the food to make any money at all..you can choose whether to believe that or not.

What I choose to believe is irrelevant. Paying the same price for a fountain drink as I would for an entire case of the same product is ridiculous.

Much like buying a drink at a bar, right?

Soda is essentially free. The cost of the actual ingredients (water, corn syrup and trace flavorings) and manufacture is so low that almost all the cost is in the overhead of getting it to you. Much of which is in the overhead of the establishment serving you.
That cost is much higher when someone pours it for you than when you pull a case off the shelf at the supermarket.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Daethor wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.

Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.

I'm curious as well, especially considering that its not a hard house rule that doesn't really change the game much. Add 10 to your current saving throw bonus and subtract 10 from all saving throw DCs in the game. Boom. Done.

I will concede that the current set-up (players roll to hit and roll to protect themselves from big bad attacks) is designed mostly to put the thematic tension into the players' hands. They're the only rolling to determine their character's fate. But rolling all offensive attacks against a static defensive number is a much more elegant design in my opinion, even if it does take away a small bit of player accountability.

Of course you could reverse that and say that "Players roll to dodge blows and to see if their big spells affect the enemy" would be designed to put the thematic tension in players' hands.

If you really wanted to do that, you could put almost all rolls in the players' hands. They roll to attack the NPCs' static defenses and roll to resist or avoid the NPCs' static attacks. The math works the same way.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

DrDeth wrote:

2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.

Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.

It doesn't matter to me who rolls or which direction the numbers go, but IIRC the part of that change that bothered me was that it became more ubiquitous. Every attack spell worked the same way: roll vs defense. As opposed to 3.x and earlier where some had saving throws, some always worked, some were touch attacks,etc.

Note: I only played one test campaign of 4E early on, so that may have changed.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Oh, yes. Coming up with new words is definitely a sign of stupidity.

Language change and use of slang definitely proves we're getting dumber.

"Kids these days!"

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

You have an excuse if you are new and inexperienced. But if you are a long time GM and you can't cope with the random stuff that players pull the you need to take a good look at yourself.

When are new players on the field with different tactics, you can't keep going back to your old play book and having a big cry when your well trodden old plays are stomped on by switched on players.

You adapt, there is no broken only different and different requires you to think and some people don't like troubling the little grey cells so they moan.

If you can't come up with your own answers ask others there is no shame in that. This not a gentleman's game of cricket with all the politeness and FairPlay. It's meant to be challenging and exciting and DMs are supposed to play dirty within the rules to make it fun for all.

So is that a reasoned assessment of the official PF ruleset? Or is it a general statement about all RPGs? Or at least all D&D variants, including 3pp?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I believe they didn't actually make new measurements, they used existing data from old studies.

In this study we used the data on the secular slowing of simple reaction time described in a meta-analysis of 14 age-matched studies from Western countries conducted between 1884 and 2004

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I have to say, Book of the New Sun is one of those classic greats of science fiction that I never really got into. I read SotT long ago and wasn't inspired to read the rest. Finally got around to them a couple years ago and it just confirmed my first impressions.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Quote:

3) Only one tier, but 3 different versions....which is what we have now. Sounds like an old 1-7 scenario. Just more narrow in the level range, but just as much work, so less people will be able to play it, thus not making monetary sense. Nope.

No, now we have two different versions, not three, and you're missing the point. Characters of the same level would play easy, normal or hard mode, unlike the tier system. This alteration is to account for differences in power level from one PC group to the next.

How would that interact with the current tier system? Would each scenario have 6 versions? (low tier-easy, low-normal, low-hard, high-easy, high-normal, high-hard) What would be the difference between a low-hard and a high-normal setting?

Or just the 3, so you could only play it with a character of a narrower level range, but got to choose your difficulty?

The first is a lot more work for each scenario. The second means less scenarios available for a character of a given level.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

Of course, if you want to have any job outside of combat you're probably going to want skills. If you want skills, you probably don't want to dump Int. If you ever want to interact with any NPCs, you probably don't want to dump Cha.

Especially at low levels, when stat bonuses/penalties are still significant relative to ranks.

Bolding mine above - I'm glad you said the "probably".

I have a human Rogue with a 8 INT that gets 8 skill points per level.

I have a Social Rogue with a 10 CHA - and makes up for it with Magic items and extra skill points.

Yeah. I was thinking more of the combat monster (caster or martial) who's just trying to make sure he's got something to contribute when not killing things.

If you get 8 skill points dumping int isn't a big deal. If you've got 2, or even 4, it's a different story. Especially if you're not human.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

...You're not going to spend it exploring any reasonable dungeon. Not without resting. Even 2 hours is 1200 rounds. If you play through 5-6 combat encounters with a few minutes of searching and bandaging between them, you probably haven't taken an hour and you're probably running low on resources...

The notion of what a "reasonable dungeon" is varies from table to table, of course. I tend to favor either A) event-based adventures which have multiple things happening over the course of a day, or B) very large dungeon compounds in which the PCs are exploring portions at a time. I only do ticking-clock plots on rare occasions. I won't claim 8-hour adventuring days (excluding the Darklands and similar situations), but they've generally eaten up 4 or 5 hours by the time they're running on fumes.

What do you spend that 4-5 hours doing? How many combats? Even in the very large dungeon compounds, unless there are large empty areas or long stretches between areas, you're going to be getting burning resources faster than daylight.

Even 15 minutes is 150 rounds. Very few groups could sustain 150 rounds of combat against anything more than chaff. So obviously the vast majority of your adventuring time has to be non-combat.

Event based adventures work, especially if the combat encounters can be interspersed with roleplaying, rather than just waiting around. Wilderness adventures work, since you'll spend most of your adventuring time traveling.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Of course, if you want to have any job outside of combat you're probably going to want skills. If you want skills, you probably don't want to dump Int. If you ever want to interact with any NPCs, you probably don't want to dump Cha.
Especially at low levels, when stat bonuses/penalties are still significant relative to ranks.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, I kind of get that's the theory, I just can't see how it works. At least without some metagame assumption that you won't use random encounters if they keep pushing on long enough to make you happy.

Except the whole 15 minute work day is already a metagame concept. No one in any story ever has walked through the woods for 10 minutes, got into a fight with a bear and then some wolves, and then said Oh...well...time to rest... Yes you are countering metagame with metagame but it works, so long as you know, you talk to your players.

Quote:

Is the thought process really supposed to be: We fought a couple of fights, were low on spells, so rested and got smeared by some randoms in the night. Obviously we need to use up less in each fight, but then do more

Random encounters dont have to just happen in the night. They could for instance be waiting for you in the next room that you already fought in yesterday. But again, the thought process is 'yea if we stop after 2 hours of adventuring our dm may very well drop another owl bear on our heads. Maybe we should keep going and see what we can get done today.'

As long as it's openly metagame, I'm more cool with it.

Still, I'm not really sure resting after a serious fight is all that metagame. It doesn't usually happen in real life but that's more because we don't get per day abilities. If I get in a fight with a bear in the woods, I'm not going to rest there over night. I'm going to get out of the woods and to a hospital. Or lie there and call for help. :)
More seriously, when soldiers on patrol get in a fire fight or hit a trap/IED, they don't conserve resources and carry on. They call in air support and back up and evac. Same thing with police. Of course, that may be because they've got backup and evac available.

"2 hours of adventuring"? The problem with the 15-minute adventuring day is that it's pretty much built in to the game. You can't run an 8 hour adventuring day unless most of it is travel time. You might spend that time travelling to the dungeon, exploring it and going back. You're not going to spend it exploring any reasonable dungeon. Not without resting. Even 2 hours is 1200 rounds. If you play through 5-6 combat encounters with a few minutes of searching and bandaging between them, you probably haven't taken an hour and you're probably running low on resources. If the combats are easier, you'll get through a few more, but you'll probably do it faster.

I really can't imagine an 8 hour adventuring day, unless it's 95% unadventful travel. How many sessions would it take to play out?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Though that example seems problematic to me.

The one thing that anyone who knows anything about a cockatrice will know is that they turn people to stone, but you don't get to know that without a +10?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I think I said earlier, there could be all sorts of reasons why the correlation wouldn't hold across historical studies. The old methodology could be bad. There could be other reasons why reaction times have slowed, though most of those could be controlled for, without having to use actual Victorians.

For example: If it's the sedentary or the "plugged in" nature of modern life, then you could compare modern groups who are more or less sedentary/plugged in. If the more group tests better on intelligence, but worse on reaction time, then you confirm that.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

Nor is there a claim that reaction time is intelligence, just that there is a correlation between simple reaction time tests and measures of intelligence in humans. Theoretically based on faster brain processing times.

I don't know if any one has studied it, but the correlation may exist in other species as well. But the larger difference between our intelligence and that of other species is brain size and structure.

I see where you are coming from here, but has anyone proposed a theory explaining why there is a correlation between the two? That seems to be an important missing bit of data.

Yes. This isn't a new thing. This paper isn't proposing the link between reaction time and intelligence.

The Wiki page is a starting point.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

See above. The Jeff maintains that it's somehow species-specific, but I remain unconvinced, insofar without a mechanism we have no way of drawing that line. Does it work for chimps and humans, but not cats? Housecats and mountain lions, but not dogs? At what point of divergence does this hypothetical species delinator kick in?

Really all I know about this is that there is a claim of a correlation between these two things:

Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition.

Assuming that this would be the only factor and that animals with much smaller and simple brains must be smarter than us if their reaction time is quicker is just mind-boggling to me. Of course brain size and structure dominate. But within a species, where the brains are similar, this effect could be noticable. I'm no expert, but this seems obvious to me.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Reaction time =/= question answering speed, though.

True, but does the simple ability to react equate to intelligence? There are many animals in existence that have lightning fast reflexes. Are they by definition smarter than us?

No, of course not. No one has claimed that.

Nor is there a claim that reaction time is intelligence, just that there is a correlation between simple reaction time tests and measures of intelligence in humans. Theoretically based on faster brain processing times.
I don't know if any one has studied it, but the correlation may exist in other species as well. But the larger difference between our intelligence and that of other species is brain size and structure.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

OK, we've got this, from the article:

"They back up their claim by suggesting they know the reason for the decline in intelligence—smarter people having fewer children, while the less smart, have more."

Which would, to a large degree, be offset by the well-established regression to the mean (given the comparatively few intervening generations -- we're not fruit flies)? Also, the heritability of IQ itself is something we have a poor handle on: summary.

P.S. Paywalls suck; reading the paper would be 10x better than reading a summary of a summary of an abstract.

The article does link the abstract. I didn't really pay a lot of attention to the Daily Caller write up.

Just going by that, I'd assume their suggested mechanism is the weakest part of the paper. It's a possible explanation, but not something their study was designed to test.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

EDIT: Out here in the wilds of science-land, when someone makes an easily-mockable claim we expect three things:

(1) Data; (2) methodology; and (3) an explanation of WHY it is the way it is.
Assuming (1) and (2) check out, the omission of the 3rd criterion is enough to provisionally reject the hypothesis until one is offered and tested.

In this case it's worse, because we're left with TWO claims (1. people are dumber now, and 2. reaction time is a valid measure of intelligence), and we have no explanation for why either one should be, far less both.

Really? And you expect all this in the abstract? In a form understandable by lay people? Or in a news article about it?

Or have you read the actual paper and found it to be missing these things?

Just from my reading of the abstract, I think the claim of this paper is only the first.
Your #2 is treated as assumed, that is taken from other research. A quick Google shows that there has been other work done on this and that it doesn't seem too controversial.

As for the 3 things you expect, assuming the Data actually show something and the methodology holds up, you don't get to reject that just because it can't be explained yet.
"I did these tests expecting X, but got Y instead. I don't know why.", is actually good science. You don't reject the Y because it isn't explained. Now other people know to start trying to explain it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

Smarter cats may react faster.

I have a total of one (1) observation (my cat is both faster and smarter than Mrs Gersen's cat), so it must be true! (Seriously, though, glossing over an unfounded claim in an abstract isn't too convincing.)

Agreed. If I was actually reviewing that study for peer review, I'd look at it more closely. Like actually reading the study itself :)

OTOH, I wouldn't expect the abstract to defend that correlation. The paper itself should, probably by referencing the literature where it's been studied in the past.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

Then your analogy makes even less sense, though it stays amusing.

Because that's what the study is claiming. They're not "completely redefining the trait being measured", they're using something known to correlate with the trait.

Abstract wrote:

Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition.

And they're doing so, I assume, because we have reaction studies from the Victorian period, but not worthwhile intelligence ones.

I deliberately picked a terrible analogy -- in fact, that was kinda the point. But my amazing BMIQ(tm) has allowed me to infer that you might be taking this more seriously than I am...

Not really.

It's just one of those studies that's easy to mock, but there may be more there than there seems at first glance.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

if there is work linking reaction time to stimula to intelligence, which the abstract claimes, then there may be something to it.

Obviously, this probably doesn't correlate across species, so the cat's reaction time is irrelevant.

1. Correlation =/= causation.

2. General correlation between variables =/= statistics regarding one variable automatically transferring to the other.
3. I fail to see how species would be at all relevant, assuming it has (a) some intelligence (not much, but some!) and (b) reaction time. The neurochemical processes in a cat's brain and a human's brain work pretty much similarly.

1. I said nothing about causation.

2. It depends on how strong the correlation is and how broadly distributed across subgroups it is. If the correlation has only been studied in recent years, of course, then it may not have held in the same way in the past. They could have been faster without being smarter.

3. Among cats, the correlation may well hold. Smarter cats may react faster. That doesn't mean that a fast cat will be smarter than a slow human. The processing speed may be there, but the rest of the infrastructure isn't.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Then your analogy makes even less sense, though it stays amusing.

Because that's what the study is claiming. They're not "completely redefining the trait being measured", they're using something known to correlate with the trait.

Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition.

And they're doing so, I assume, because we have reaction studies from the Victorian period, but not worthwhile intelligence ones.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I'm not so sure about this. It sounds stupid on the face of it, but if there is work linking reaction time to stimula to intelligence, which the abstract claimes, then there may be something to it.

Obviously, this probably doesn't correlate across species, so the cat's reaction time is irrelevant.

And if you can show that BMI correlates to intelligence, then it might be worth using it as a proxy for intelligence, since it's so much easier to measure. Without that, it's worthless of course.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

While I dont know if they actually need to be 'random' I think non set peice encounters are an important part of the game. First and foremost not every encounter can be something dms spend hours planning. That just isnt a rational use of a dm's time. Sometimes you just need to pop a few monsters in a clearing and let the party go at it. Its important in fact to do this given the expections of 3-4 encounters a day. If the party starts retreating after 2 encounters every day to rest, its time to park a few 'random' encounters their way to keep their resources appropriately taxed for the day.

This argument always bothers me.

If the party feels their weakened enough after 2 encounters that they need to rest, but finds when they do so they're threatened by a couple more encounters, why is the expected reaction to push on farther so that they're even more weakened when they retreat to rest? Shouldn't they be saving even more resources for the now expected randam encounters?

That is the point, the party should be forced to concerve resources. Too often encounters are 'too easy' because characters will expend large amounts of resources on a single encounter, then retreat to rest. They are SUPPOSED to need to concerve their resources for unexpected encounters and not be able to dictate the pace of the adventure. That's the dms job.

If you are saying that the party will stop even earlier because they now feel they have to concerve more, the point of random enocunters is to shock them out of the behavior. After they have been forced to deal with a couple encounters past their 'comfort zone' they will realize that they can better manage their resources (hopefully) and go longer over the course of the day without having to rest every 15 minutes.

Yeah, I kind of get that's the theory, I just can't see how it works. At least without some metagame assumption that you won't use random encounters if they keep pushing on long enough to make you happy.

I much prefer reactive settings to random encounters as a way to set the pace. I'd rather have the party worrying about what the inhabitants of the dungeon are doing to refortify or seek them out while they're resting, than about something unrelated wandering upon them in the night.

If there's always a good chance something dangerous will hit them while they're resting, then they won't dare even use up resources in the serious encounters where they're supposed to. After all, even after 5 or 6 encounters and then beating the epic BBEG fight, you could roll a couple APL+ encounters while trying to rest.

Is the thought process really supposed to be: We fought a couple of fights, were low on spells, so rested and got smeared by some randoms in the night. Obviously we need to use up less in each fight, but then do more fights so we're still just as used up when we get attacked in the middle of the night?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Please help me to understand this thread.

Our premise is, "the OP has exactly the game he wants. Paizo could also make a new game that other people would prefer -- one that the OP would be in no way obligated to switch to (except for some sort of neurological compulsion that could easily be cleared up with a session or two of therapy)."

The response is, "No! If I have the game I want, no one else is allowed to have theirs, if the same company produces it! (If a different company produces it I guess it's OK.)"

Help me. I'm at a loss.

A better response:

"If Paizo moves to PF 2, then Paizo stops making stuff for PF 1. I like getting more stuff for PF 1. Therefore, I do not want Paizo to make PF 2."

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

While I dont know if they actually need to be 'random' I think non set peice encounters are an important part of the game. First and foremost not every encounter can be something dms spend hours planning. That just isnt a rational use of a dm's time. Sometimes you just need to pop a few monsters in a clearing and let the party go at it. Its important in fact to do this given the expections of 3-4 encounters a day. If the party starts retreating after 2 encounters every day to rest, its time to park a few 'random' encounters their way to keep their resources appropriately taxed for the day.

This argument always bothers me.

If the party feels their weakened enough after 2 encounters that they need to rest, but finds when they do so they're threatened by a couple more encounters, why is the expected reaction to push on farther so that they're even more weakened when they retreat to rest? Shouldn't they be saving even more resources for the now expected randam encounters?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Lord Mhoram wrote:

The movie was a great "Tony Stark techno thriller" movie but a really bad "Iron Man" movie. And I went to see an Iron Man movie.

If the movie was billed that way, I would have just saved my money and waited for the DVD. It would be like going to a Superman movie and having a Clark Kent news drama where less than 5 minutes he was Superman. Likely a decent movie, but not what you want to see when you go out to a Superman movie.

I think to be fair, we'd have to compare it to Superman spending a lot of time as Clark Kent while still pursuing the story movie - and isn't that largely the successful Smallville?

But a lot of the point of Smallville (and Lois & Clark, I believe) is that it wasn't billed as a Superman!!! show.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

meatrace wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Impeachment hearings before the end of the term.

I am not so sure about that.

If the GOP's attempt to impeach is seen by the public as political, then it will likely backfire on them.

This would be true even if there is substance to the charges - a.k.a.: Bill Clinton.

Except that the GOP are so completely sealed in their bubble that they would never have any notion that it might backfire. They're gonzo. I'll be willing to bet someone will at least make a motion before the year is out. Probably a teabagger.

Kinda like Dennis Kucinich did with Bush in 2008? Or John Conyers did in 2005? Or like the New Mexico Democratic Party put a plank in their platform demanding Bush's impeachment in 2006? Or like the Vermont Democratic Committee voted to call for in 2007? Or like the Vermont legislature voted on in 2008? Or like the New Hampshire legislature also voted on in 2008? The point is there was not a whole lot of faux outrage over people talking about or drafting articles of impeachment when it was Bush in office. And honestly, No smart Republican would vote to support articles of impeachment against Pres. Obama, because Pres. Biden would be an even bigger train wreck.

Irrelevant, really.

Barring something truly major, there is absolutely no chance of a conviction before 2014 and only after if the Senate has a major swing in the mid-terms. Don't worry about President Biden. (Though there's an outside chance he could run and win in 2016.)

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the House voted on and even passed articles of impeachment, if they can get any traction with any of these charges. And not just the stupid ones. It's a political calculation. If they did hold such a vote, many Republicans who voted against it would face primary challengers attacking them for it. There's been so much energy invested in painting Obama as illegitimate, corrupt and un-American that a good chunk of the Base wouldn't accept anything else.
Yeah, it might well backfire on them. It's not like the GOP hasn't done anything that would backfire recently. And it might not hurt so bad in the long run.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not every random encounter has to be a fight. Especially those way out of CR range ones.

If you roll up a dragon for a low level party, they can just see him flying overhead. They don't even have to run away, just don't try to draw it's attention.

They get a bit of "There's dangerous stuff out there", without taking up much time or resources.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And there's a big difference between the government banning you painting your house flamingo pink and your neighbors shunning you (and maybe your business) if you paint your house flamingo pink.

Or, to go back to the business at hand, between the government forcing Rush Limbaugh off the air because he's an offensive a&%$~!* and people complaining to his advertisers and him losing revenue because he's an offensive a+++!!~.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Mike Shel wrote:

Jim Groves wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

I'm also worried that this module will "wussify" dragons. Of course, there's more than one way to defeat a foe than fight them, but if that's how the dragon is defeated...

I would count on the author Mike Shel to deliver a satisfying conclusion.

The dragon, an aficionado of Taldan high culture, agrees to cease his depredations if the party can get him season tickets to the Oppara Opera House.

However, getting those tickets is an incredible challenge.

Wussified, indeed.

And then the difficult task of convincing the opera house manager to allow a dragon to attend, and figuring out the logistics of getting a grown dragon good seating.

It's a challenge unlike any you've faced before. :P

I've got say, that would be an awesome adventure.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Obama Worse Than Nixon?

Let's ask the NYT's legal counsel during the Pentagon Papers!

It's a silly comparison. The two cases are so completely different it doesn't even make sense.

The Pentagon Papers was a release of essentially political information the public needed to know to understand the war that had been kept secret by the government. It was a huge embarrassment for the government and changed the politics of the day. Classic whistleblowing, in spirit in not in law. And it was known who did it. Anything Nixon did in response was done in retaliation.

This was the about the release of information that jeopardized an ongoing investigation, not for political purposes or to reveal government corruption or wrongdoing, but just as a regular news scoop. Nor had anyone taken credit for the leak, so finding out who did it might be critical to preventing further leaks.

That said, the Obama administration has been very harsh on leaks and whistleblowing, but I'd point more at the treatment of Manning and possibly of Assange than at this scandal

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Chris Matthews discusses why the IRS scandal will hurt the government.

Overall, I think Matthews is right. Even though, as wolf and meat point out, you can argue the scrutiny is deserved because almost everyone abuses that particular tax exempt designation, the public doesn't care about that. They don't because the IRS is the most feared agency in the federal government. People put up with it because they trust the agency plays fair.

But calling that trust into question puts into jeopardy faith in the federal government. The left is frustrated by this and because Obama doesn't seem to be willing to fire people. He probably doesn't like direct confrontation.

There are reports that the scandal was brewing for awhile, but Obama says that he only just learned of it. If true this means his people shelter him from bad news and confrontation.

Management 101, if you can't handle firing people, then you have to give the power to someone else who will do the job.

Firing people? You mean like Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner and Joseph Grant, commissioner of the agency's tax-exempt and government entities division?

Technically they resigned, but at that level that's pretty much how it works. Or does Obama really have to hold a press conference and say "You're Fired" for it to count?

Or should he have fired them before the audit and investigation was done? "Oh there are rumors of scandal, fire someone!!!"

I do agree that this is going to hurt, mostly because people already dislike the IRS and are willing to believe bad things about it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean like we had 3 tiers before? Scenarios, modules and APs?

The modules are just longer now. They were always bigger than scenarios.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

As much as I'm amused by Cordwainer Bird, the name also always reminds me of Cordwainer Smith. Who was absolutely brilliant and unlike anything else in SF.

But, yes, Harlan has his brilliant moments as well. Both in his fiction and his essays.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Or my censors.

It just goes to show how thoroughly even we are indoctrinated. Whatever you make, you earn. And that's how much you're worth.

Unless of course you're poor. Or union. Or government. In which case you don't really earn that much. You just steal it from real hard-working Americans.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Ah yes, that's what I was looking for.

I'd still like to see a breakdown on numbers, but I think that goes a long way to show that it wasn't politically motivated.

I'd still like to see a more detailed breakdown on groups selected for the special processing and on the ones the auditor didn't find sufficient documentation for.

Of course, chances are slim this bit of evidence will hit the pundit circuit, the main news shows or come up in the Issa's committee hearing.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Sadly I can see the holes left wide open already.

Because you specify, no modifiers and no stealth use for both Notices, this doesn't address the question of whether any modifiers, including stealth apply to the Notice DC.

It also doesn't address the question of a pinpoint DC that isn't based on Stealth.

It's really hard to come up with concise questions that nail down what we really want to know.

I'm hoping Wraithstrike is right and they already plan to address this.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

How don't the spot checks match up with PF? If I missed something let me know what it is. Every thing I have quoted with reference to spot has matched up.

Again from that same article:

The Table under Spot Check DCs
<Reformatted to hopefully make readable here>
Invisible Thing Notice DC Locate DC

Active Creature 20 40

Living Creature 30 50
Holding Still

Inanimate Object 40 60

Obviously PF only has immobile and active. And doesn't allow notice on non-active, while 3.5 made it harder. Nor does the 30 DC for holding still match the +40 for not moving.
And just above it says explicitly

The DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

thejeff wrote:

So if I rolled a 20 on my reactive Perception check and got a total 45, beating the DC 20 to Notice and the DC 40 to Pinpoint, you would just tell me there was something around?

And I would have to use a move action to have any chance of pinpointing it?

I would say: You get a reactive Perception check to the stimulus of an active invisible creature. Depending on your roll you can Pinpoint, Notice or fail entirely.
If you Notice (or fail and have some reason too), you can take a move action tointentionally searhc and make another check.

That seems to match the RAW just as well, considering the Invisibility text says nothing about active or reactive.

What "DC 40 to Pinpoint" are we talking about? Are we still discussing a stealthy rogue who gets a 20 on Stealth + 20 for invisibility?

(see, that's why it's a bad idea to include a stealth result of 20 with all the other +20 modifiers flying around this discussion, it's hard to tell them apart, we should use a Stealth roll of 19 instead, it's much clearer that way).

I would agree, one check is all you need.

If there is an invisible critter within 30' (let's say 25 feet away), using stealth, with no bonuses or penalties for moving (so he's slowly moving at less than half his speed), let's say his final result on his Stealth check is 19:

DC to Notice: 20
DC to Pinpoint: Stealth +20 (invisibility) + 2 (distance) = 41

At this point I was ignoring stealth and working with either my or Wraithstrike's approach, which without stealth and within 30' give the same DC for Pinpointing.

Let's say an invisible creature, moving less than half speed, not using stealth within 10'. So there are no speed, distance or other modifiers from the table.
DC 20 to notice. +20 to Pinpoint = DC 40 to Pinpoint.

I think you would have the Pinpoint DC the same as the Notice if he's not using Stealth? Or 2 higher in your example, since you only count Distance for Pinpoint not notice?

We do agree on how the checks work. One reactive check can get both. You can use an active one to retry if you have reason. We just don't calculate the DCs the same way.