CBDunkerson's page

Some fun things can be done with metamagic.

I like Arcane Mark + Umbral Spell + Shadow Grasp for a 3rd level spell slot to surround a touched item or person with darkness that entangles everyone entering it EXCEPT the caster. Reflex save to avoid entanglement, but no spell resistance.

A Winter Witch can use the Frozen Caress hex with Arcane Mark to deal 1d4 cold damage on a touch attack with no save or spell resistance.

Whereas 'developing economies' (China, India and the rest of the world) in orange have all been increasing dramatically and will continue to do so for decades more.

Can you cite even a single major energy forecaster (e.g. IEA, EIA, BNEF, etc) that believes we will see "decades" of coal plants "increasing dramatically" in "developing economies"?

I cannot... because it just isn't remotely plausible. Coal plants will be in decline in every country within five years.

At the outside.

China is the last great exception... and that only because regional managers went on an all out construction binge ahead of planned (and now in effect) central government pullback on coal plants.

Put them in competition with one or more other groups... a tournament sponsored by an eccentric noble, an ancient wizard's recently unearthed magical challenge dungeon, a race across untamed wilderness to a fabled treasure.... whatever. It just needs to be some sort of situation where similar groups are facing similar challenges.

Then you just have to show the other team(s) beating them via the sorts of things they COULD be doing, but aren't;

'Oh, the Oni? Yeah, I forgot about them... obviously we always carry a bunch of cheap vials of alchemist fire and acid so it was a complete non issue. I guess you guys ran out?'

'Oh, you guys had to head all the way back to town after the Wraiths? I guess we got lucky there, we had found a scroll of Restoration so we were able to patch up our fighter who took all the hits and just keep going.'

Et cetera.

The final EIA values for 2020 US electricity generation are out.

Renewables have surpassed both coal and nuclear and are now the second largest source of electricity in the US after natural gas... which itself only passed coal in 2015.

The EIA has also analyzed planned additions for 2021 and finds the following breakdown of new US electricity generation for 2021;

39% Solar
31% Wind
16% Natural Gas
11% Battery storage
3% Nuclear

That's 84% zero-emissions power generation, ZERO new coal power, and only 16% natural gas. From this we can see that the tide has already turned and natural gas is following coal in to irrelevancy.

Also note that the natural gas additions are primarily limited to three states with deep fossil fuel roots; Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The entrenched infrastructure, politics, and traditions propping up natural gas in these last few bastions can only hold out so long. Economics will inevitably win in the end, with cheaper solar and wind replacing the last vestige of the old fossil fuel monopoly.

That 11% battery storage also represents more than three times the existing total from all prior years combined. We're adding nearly as much battery storage as we are natural gas. Five years ago nearly everyone would have said that was impossible... decades away at the earliest. Now it is reality and mass battery storage will radically transform how the electricity grid works.

Petroleum, coal, and nuclear (in that order) have all fallen below their replacement rates. That is, more electricity generation from those sources is being retired each year than is added (e.g. for 2021 nuclear is adding 1.1 GW, and retiring 5.1 GW).

Natural gas, in contrast, has a very low retirement rate because it only really started taking off about 20 years ago... leaving the oldest plants in the current natural gas boom still with about 10 years to go before they'd normally be retired. However, I expect that, before we get to that point, annual new natural gas additions will have hit zero and some existing plants will be shutting down early because it will cost more to continue running them (e.g. mostly due to the cost of the fuel) than to replace them with newly built renewable power.

We've reached the 'absurd rationalizations for why QB is not wrong' stage of this particular argument.

Suffice it to say; Wind and solar power use less steel and concrete than fossil fuel power plants. Ergo, if we wish to pretend to be concerned about these (ridiculously abundant) resources we'd still want to switch to renewables so that we could meet our power needs using less of them going forward.

So, assuming a semi-concentrated effort, how long would it take for the world to implement the pure solar/hydro/wind power?

If we continue to elect governments that do everything they can to prop up fossil fuels then it could take 50 years or so. We'd very likely go over +2°C warming by 2100.

If we continue to elect governments who do little or nothing to accelerate the transition then it will likely take about 30 years. Warming would most likely be right around +2°C by 2100.

If the whole world engaged in a massive program to transition as quickly as possible, comparable to the US mobilization upon entering WWII, then we might be able to do it in as little as 10 years. We'd very likely stay below the +2°C by 2100 warming target.

Disclaimer: The above estimates are for the point at which carbon emissions would be low enough to no longer be a threat. We will never reach zero. Just as humans still burn wood and ride horses, despite having technologically superior options, there will always be some niche usage of fossil fuels in the future.

So while technically Norway is powered largely by renewable sources you really can't say their economy is Net Zero Carbon. No, not by a long shot.

I didn't say that.

For more than a century now fossil fuels have been the driving force of the global economy. Every time economic activity went up, so did fossil fuel usage. Every time economic activity went down (e.g. depressions) so did fossil fuel usage.

The linkage between fossil fuel consumption and economic activity was so strong that some had long claimed it was unbreakable. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen many individual states and countries have economic growth without increased fossil fuel consumption, and starting in 2016 the whole world reached that point... and the reason was that renewable energy increased instead. Thus, the 'unbreakable link' is between economic activity and energy generation... HOW the energy is generated doesn't matter.

Norway, and the rest of the world, continuing to make money off fossil fuel sales doesn't change the observed reality that renewables can replace fossil fuels and are now doing so. Countries can and do get by just fine without fossil fuels. Norway gets about 18% of its GDP from fossil fuel sales. Iceland gets about 0%... their biggest 'energy' export being fish oil.

There's another real issue.

Namely, to build out this 'green' future is going to use up our remaining CO2 "budget" and then fly right past it to the tune of several hundred gigatons.

Depends on which 'budget' you are talking about. The remaining CO2 which can be emitted before exceeding +1.5°C warming by 2100? The amount remaining before exceeding +2.0°C warming? Or some other factor?

If you mean +1.5°C then you are maybe correct that the CO2 emissions required to build out a global renewable infrastructure would put us over the limit... and it is almost certainly true that the continued fossil fuel emissions during the time required to transition would do so.

However, for +2.0°C it is entirely possible that we can complete the transition in time, and very likely that the emissions required just to build renewable infrastructure would not put us over.

For CC, what's the general thing of that? Is it lots of machines or chemicals that bond with CO2 and release O2 or just take it out entirely? Or something else?

Mostly, it is fiction.

The two primary concepts are;
1: Capture the CO2 as it is being emitted ('carbon capture and storage' / CCS). This is the idea behind the 'clean coal' nonsense. Theoretically, they separate the CO2 out from the other emissions and then store it rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. Problem is that the separation, transport, and storage components are each prohibitively expensive. Which is why there aren't any 'clean coal' plants.

2: Build giant 'CO2 scrubbers' for the entire planet... pull the CO2 back out of the atmosphere and store it. This is even more economically infeasible than the previous.

No one has really studied whether there would be sufficient construction resources, storage sites, et cetera... because there just isn't any way to make this technology remotely feasible from a cost perspective currently.

For renewable only, what's a bit deeper than the general picture? I know wind and solar are part of it, and we need better storage systems, but I'm not enough up on this to know deeper than what the general direction of the issue is.

Several countries (i.e. Iceland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Denmark) have already reached near 100% renewable using primarily hydro power. However, most countries do not have enough hydro resources to cover their needs. Either wind OR solar, on the other hand, could easily cover our global power requirements if fully developed. Over the past decade prices have fallen sufficiently that it would now cost less to power the world with wind and solar than it would to continue using fossil fuels.

The only 'real' issue with wind and solar is that they vary in availability. However, that can easily be solved in various ways;

1: Have stable backup power from hydro, geothermal, nuclear, etc.
2: Overbuild wind and solar generation and the electricity grid to allow areas producing excess power to cover areas falling short.
3: Build various forms of short and long term electricity storage to cover shortfalls.
4: Some combination of the above.

Most studies seem to indicate that currently it would be most cost effective to rely primarily on option 2 with options 1 & 3 only being needed a handful of times per year. However, that may change as battery costs continue to come down.

The 'big picture' issue is "short term" (i.e. decadal) warming. Most species, particularly humans, can adapt to warming spread out over centuries. Warming over the course of mere decades is another matter. That is why you'll constantly hear about 'warming of X degrees by 2100'.

Most estimates indicate that if we can keep warming by 2100 to +1.75°C +/- 0.25°C then most species should be able to adapt to the change and we humans should be able to avoid any significant population decline. That said, we've already passed +1°C and have emitted nearly enough CO2 to make +1.5°C unstoppable w/o some radical new technology (e.g. global CO2 scrubbers). Thus, it is pretty much inevitable that we are going to be somewhere in the uncertainty range around the zone of 'unacceptable losses'.

More intense storms are already here and will continue to worsen. Most of the flooding issues will actually take place over the subsequent centuries (i.e. whatever amount of warming we see by 2100 we will likely see roughly double that amount by the year 3000)... though there are a few extremely low elevation islands (e.g. Tuvalu), cities (e.g. New Orleans), and countries (e.g. Netherlands) for which it is a more immediate concern.

European electricity production from renewables exceeded fossil fuels in 2020

Renewables hit 38% compared to 37% for fossil fuels for the first time. Nuclear accounted for most of the remainder. That means more than 50% of EU electricity generation is now carbon neutral... and the constantly cited 'dangers' of 'renewable intermittency' and 'grid stability' have proved to be easily resolved... even in a large / sprawling and inconsistently designed market like the EU.

Renewables have managed this reversal in market share despite all the entrenched infrastructure and vast financial support behind fossil fuels... the shift will only accelerate as those benefits start to build on their side while dwindling on the other. Renewables cost less... and now they are the dominant force in the market. This is the classic pattern for a market driven technology disruption.

If - IF - the wildfires and droughts and Cat 5 hurricanes are the result of AGW

The measured increase in activity of those (and other) types is unquestionably due to global warming.

then without a barely concievable CC&S effort the year 2100 is going to be the biggest #### #### since the War of the Worlds and 2050 will suck beyond historical measure of human suffering.

Nonsense. Neither of those outcomes is unavoidable, and CC&S remains amongst the least likely solutions for stopping them.

Funny thing is just two years ago the clock was saying we've got 11 years, 11 months, + remaining. Now it's 7 years & 10 days.

The 'time remaining' to +1.5°C is an estimate based on emission rates and other factors. If emissions are higher than expected then the 'time remaining' goes down. If we manage to reduce emissions drastically then the 'time remaining' may become infinite.

All of which is IMO silly to begin with, because global warming is NOT a cliff with everything fine on one side of a line and free-fall on the other. Unfortunately, that's the kind of problem many people seem to need in order to 'understand' the issues. In reality, it is already 'too late' to avoid effects of global warming that we are already seeing (e.g. increased wildfires) and will never be too late to avoid effects that global warming just won't reach (e.g. end of all life on Earth).

OTOH the Cornonavirus has mutated significantly somewhere in England and is now spreading about the continent. Perhaps the CO2 impact will be significant after all?

Nope. Math still exists. The ~7% drop in CO2 emissions from 2019 to 2020 is miniscule. Instead of atmospheric totals going up ~2 ppm per year they'll go up ~2 * 93% = ~1.86 = ~2 ppm per year. It is literally within the scope of a rounding error. If covid-19 kept the world in lockdown conditions equivalent to 2020 for a decade (not going to happen) we'd be talking about ~18.6 ppm increase rather than ~20 ppm. The global warming impact of 1.4 ppm by the year 2100 is simply too small to measure. Heck, variability of atmospheric CO2 levels within each year is greater than that.

For the past five years there has been a merry-go-round of nonsense in this thread where the fact that the "current" Paris Agreement pledges were not sufficient to prevent 2°C warming was advanced as 'proof' that eventual warming must perforce be greater than that amount.

In response, it has been repeatedly pointed out, and just as frequently ignored, that the Paris Agreement pledges were always intended to be revised every five years.

Well, it has been five years... and now revised Paris Agreement pledges starting to come in.

As should have been obvious given improving renewable technologies, the revised pledges are better than the original values. So far 71 countries have improved their pledges. Many are now looking at 2030 targets rather than later decades. China and India are eyeing zero emissions growth decades ahead of previous estimates.

We'll have to wait and see how everything plays out and how much progress countries actually continue making, but both pledges and actual emissions are moving in the right direction... just as repeatedly predicted.

If you want to have some idea of the future, it is important to look at trends rather than 'snapshots'.

Somewhat bold new prediction: We have already passed the peak CO2 emissions year... 2019. That is, no future year will again have 40.1 billion tons (or more) of CO2 emissions. Obviously, 2020 is going to be down sharply (to ~37 billion tons)due to covid-19, but if things returned to 'business as usual' then we'd see emissions growth resuming in 2021 and later years. Instead, I am betting that the economic slowdown has accelerated the demise of coal power and thus even as economic activity returns to previous levels it will be less CO2 intensive. Maybe values tick up for a year here and there in the future, but not enough to get back to the 2019 level.

I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam.

...says the guy who routinely claims that the climate models are completely wrong because he knows feedback effects better than the experts who develop them.

As to the "hundreds of scholars" Lomborg assembled to make suggestions on climate change... there were, in fact, five. All of them economists with no background in climate science and apparently no understanding of it. For example, they concluded that the absolute best course of action would be to spray chemicals into the air to whiten clouds and thus reduce the amount of light reaching the surface. The stupidity is staggering. Let's just go over the most obvious problems;

1: Their economic analysis concluded this was the best choice because it would cost the least to reduce temperatures... on a one time basis. That is, they had so little understanding of climate change that they thought they need only briefly cool the planet down enough to offset the observed warming. In reality, the 'cloud whitening' would last a few months at best. The chemicals would fall back to Earth and end the cooling forcing, but the greenhouse gases would still be up there continuing to cause a warming forcing... and thus they'd have to do it all over again... every few months... for thousands of years going forward. At unimaginably massive expense.

2: Less sunlight coming in would be a 'bad thing' <tm> in its own right. The cost from decreased crop yields alone (a factor they completely overlooked) would be staggering.

3: Let's spray massive amounts of chemicals all over the planet! What could go wrong? Again, they didn't factor in the environmental damage at all.

Basically, those five experts on economics analyzed fictional scenarios provided by Lomborg... 'spray some chemicals in the air for a few weeks and global warming is magically over'. Their math was fine. The 'facts' they based that math on were outright fraud.

Lomborg has repeatedly been demonstrated to spread disinformation. The fact that some of his defenders argued that he shouldn't be held to scientific standards because he isn't a scientist doesn't change that... he is still spreading blatantly false information. The 'maybe he does not know any better' defense is irrelevant (and IMO implausible). His claims are still false.

Unless teslas cloud based transmission of energy works, I don't think alaska using shore based energy production is practical. You have to GET that power somewhere , somehow, and permafrost is hell on powerlines and poles.

Power transmission along the 'Railbelt' from the Kenai peninsula up to Fairbanks is about the only part of Alaska where long distance power transmission (of any sort) makes sense even without the melting permafrost problem. About two-thirds of the state's population lives alongside that ~500 mile long corridor in the southern part of the state. Melting permafrost HAS been playing havoc with power lines (not to mention the roads and railways) in that area... but as that happens they repair or replace the infrastructure. It is a small enough area that they could just bury the main power line.

Everywhere else you are looking at small isolated communities where it makes more sense to build local power rather than hundreds of miles of transmission line. This has led to an explosion of solar replacing diesel power in those areas... despite the relative lack of sunlight in Alaska. Local wind, geothermal, and/or small hydro plants can also supply power for these remote areas.

The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid

”MIT” wrote:

Building the level of renewable generation and storage necessary to reach the state’s goals would drive up costs exponentially, from $49 per megawatt-hour of generation at 50 percent to $1,612 at 100 percent.

And that's assuming lithium-ion batteries will cost roughly a third what they do now <meaning July 2018, and 1/3 is the projected decrease BTW>.

Try again. The article was written in 2018. The MIT study it was citing was released in 2016. Based on 2015 prices. The rates assumed are thus wildly out of date.

More importantly, the study was assuming massive amounts of year long storage... charging up lithium ion batteries with excess solar during the Summer to get through the Winter months. That's an absurd scenario. Instead, any remotely competent grid operator is going to have Wind power (which generally does BETTER in Winter than it does in Summer), other 'overcapacity' options, larger grids, and non-lithium long term storage (e.g. pumped hydro) to make up most of the seasonal solar difference.

Studies of things nobody is talking about doing exist only to spread confusion.

This study, from last year, discusses some of the more plausible options for transitioning to renewable power... without increasing costs.

Though, at that... $2.5 trillion isn't even one year's worth of the US budget deficit at this point. That is, we're adding more in government debt EVERY YEAR than your absurdly inflated figure for permanently getting to 100% renewable energy would cost.

Here is a recent non-####### debate between Jeff Nesbit and Bjorn Lomborg on whether humanity should aim for a “carbon neutral” 2040.

Bjorn Lomborg doesn't debate. He deceives. For example, his very first argument... 'global warming is only a moderate problem because far more people rate poverty as their top concern'. That's the 'logical' equivalent of saying that global nuclear war wouldn't be a big deal because people are more interested in who won American Idol. He's a professional scam artist.

I find it amusing that Jeff Nesbit’s argument boils down to ‘a carbon neutral economy is inevitable’ so let’s go all in. Why not? For one, I’d like to have a likely middle class living waiting for me in 2050 and not the poverty of paying back the trillions of dollars of debt a carbon neutral 2040 would give us.

It is inevitable because it is cheaper.

The 'OMG they are going to destroy the economy!' stuff is complete nonsense. Just like it was when fighting ozone depletion was going to destroy the economy. Just like when catalytic converters were going to destroy the economy. Stop the alarmist nonsense. Things that cost LESS do not bankrupt the economy.

Case in point:

Hawaii lets tourists in now. Yeah they have restrictions but there will be additional infections from that. And therefore additional deaths. Human life apparently has a price and can be measured in tourist dollars right now in Hawaii.

You are only looking at one side of the equation.

Tourism is a major part of Hawaii's economy. Without it both the local population and the government have less money coming in. Which means less for healthcare and other life saving expenses. So less tourism dollars means additional deaths too.

Ergo, what a responsible government actually does is not 'decide the value of human life', as you put it, but attempt to find the policies which best preserve and enhance the most lives.

Hawaii has averaged less than one coronavirus death per day since the virus reached the island. That's an extremely low level, and so long as they can maintain it they are right to reduce restrictions that could cause equal or greater deaths.

While that’s technically true, the CO2 was already there and its warming effect only temporarily masked by particulate pollution. That warming has not been captured by the average global climate model...

This will remain obvious nonsense no matter how often you repeat it. The impacts of changing levels of particulate pollution were one of the very first factors implemented in global climate models. Indeed, the big 'warming or cooling' debate in the 1960s was over whether the cooling from particulate pollution or the warming from greenhouse gas accumulation would prove to be the stronger forcing... an issue which was resolved roughly half a century ago, yet here you are pretending that it is still an 'unknown' that scientists fail to account for.

The International Energy Agency has released its 2020 Renewable Energy report

Some key findings;

Renewables will account for about 90% of new electricity generation world wide in 2020 and the IEA is projecting that they will account for about 95% of net capacity increase through 2025. Basically, development of new fossil fuel power plants has all but ceased.

They are projecting that renewables will now surpass coal and natural gas to become the largest global source of power generation within the next four years... accounting for a third of all generation by 2025. Solar will account for 60% of that growth and wind 30%.

Thru 2025; "In the European Union and the United Kingdom, the increase in renewables-based generation is expected to be more than nine times the rise in electricity demand, and close to three times the increase in US demand." So, in addition to covering most new demand they are also projecting that renewables will replace vast amounts of existing fossil fuel power.

While the pandemic has reduced global energy demand by about 5% this year, demand for renewable energy actually grew about 1%. In short, renewables took a bigger slice of a smaller market... a double hit against fossil fuels.

These findings confirm (again) that the pandemic isn't going to have much impact on global warming or the rate of renewable power development. Indeed, the report indicates that while covid-19 is not a major factor, government policy decisions in the next few years could increase renewable growth significantly beyond the values projected.

One level dip in Spellslinger Wizard to get all the benefits of the class. Then switch to another full caster class (e.g. Arcanist, Druid, Psychic, etc) to avoid all the penalties. Presumably either the benefits should be limited to Wizard spells or the penalties apply to spells from all classes, but it isn't written that way.

Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler using any one-handed piercing melee weapons other than scimitars can get Dex bonus to damage with weapons in both hands. The class was meant to be another 'use a scimitar in one hand and nothing in the other' class, but as written it works better if not using a scimitar at all.

Remind me again what the cost of the Green New Deal is going to be over the next 20 years? The only thing I keep finding is the Ernst "$93 Trillion" story that I'm pretty sure isn't an exact amount.

The problem is that the 'Green New Deal' is currently just a set of aspirations rather than a formal plan... like when Roosevelt was campaigning on the promise of the 'New Deal' it was named after (which, BTW is another example of an even larger government program which showed massive long term benefits).

Thus, people are free to pretend that it would include/exclude all kinds of things and make up any numbers they like for it.

You can read the actual text, but the basic idea is for the US government to fund a large jobs program to get to 100% clean energy.

The arguments against it basically come down to 'logic' like;

'Think of how many computer servers would be needed to support this internet thing! What would anyone even DO with it?'

'Nobody drives across half a dozen states at a time! Building an interstate highway system will be a colossal waste of money!'

'Building a so called sewer system for the city of Rome would surely bankrupt the empire... and for no benefit whatsoever!'

'Gug not think this fire stuff a good idea. Costs too many sticks!'

CB wrote:

Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years.

Exactly my point!

Why the push for a 'green new deal' if doing nothing (and therefore spending a metric ####ton less money) gives the same result?

A: The results would NOT be "the same".

Without efforts to accelerate the transition, oil and natural gas will hang on for a few decades. Even the retirement of coal could be further accelerated.

B: Most versions of a 'green new deal' I have seen would result in less money being spent overall.

Do governments engage in sensible long-term projects?

Yes.

Directly contradicting your earlier statement, 'Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?'

Government will build a $5M road for $100M every time. And when government doing nothing gets us the same result, I vote for doing nothing every time.

So... do nothing and the coronavirus will just 'magically go away' on its own. Global warming will solve itself. The national highway system both sprung into existence on its own and is now self-repairing.

No. Doing nothing does NOT get the same result. Doing nothing gets... nothing.

Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?

Have you heard of this thing called, 'the Internet'?

I could go on... hundreds of examples.

Earlier...

....
Make up your mind would you?

Do you really not understand temporal causality either?

In addition to various creatures with low Int (and/or Wis) listed in the statblocks... keep in mind that those are meant to be averages. That is, creatures with a 10 or 11 stat value listed are generally meant to represent the average of a 3d6 range... which means that individual members of that race could have a stat of 3.

#6 You might ask why is that line at the very end of trample there that talks about trampling someone multiple times. The answer is with multiple feats you could potentially hit the same guy multiple times. With normal overrun from my interpretation you could hit the same guy multiple times if you had enough movement on a character that has the feat "Bulette Leap". A character with 30' movement could keep running someone over 3 times but again do no damage.

The line in question;

The most relevant information here isn't that trampling a single target more than once in a round has no extra effect... it is that you can trample multiple targets in a round. As stated, "each target" takes trampling damage.

Trample can effect multiple targets in a round because the text of the ability explicitly says so. No other feats or abilities required.

A (normal / two-armed) character without the vestigial arm could not attack with both a two-handed weapon and an off-hand weapon... ergo, that is an extra attack and cannot be done with a vestigial arm. It doesn't matter which hand(s) hold which weapons. You can't end up with more attacks because of the vestigial arm.

It has always struck me as a continuity and thematic error that Hideous Laughter isn't on the Witch spell list. After all, according to the 'meta history' of the spell, it was invented by a Witch from Golarion.

Study of Covid-19 economic impacts

"The fundamental reason that people seem to be spending less is not because of state-imposed restrictions," Chetty said. "It's because high-income folks are able to work remotely, are choosing to self-isolate and are being cautious given health concerns. And unless you fundamentally address that concern, I think there's limited capacity to restart the economy."

Nice to have detailed economic analysis confirming the obvious, but it still should have been obvious all along.

Perfectly clear. So a giant with 50 heads and 100 arms gets 100 attacks?

As Ryan pointed out, there is a specific exception in that case to avoid having to roll 100 attacks.

Indeed, the fact that the rules for that creature specifically make an exception ("you don’t have to resolve each of these as a separate attack") again establishes what the general rule is.

The Quickwood has no arms at all and is making natural (i.e. non manufactured weapon) attacks, and thus irrelevant to the topic.

Monsters are monsters. They get abilities based on "that sounds about right." Not rules meant to build player characters.

Demonstrably false. In Pathfinder, monsters are built with exactly the same rules as players. Many of them have specific abilities which are not available to players, but for things common to both PCs and NPCs the rules work exactly the same.

If you want to give Kasatha players 3 off hand attacks, that is fine. The way I read things, that isn't RAW and I'm fairly certain it isn't RAI either.

...and I find it equally clear that the intent of the written rules was always that you get one primary hand weapon attack and one off-hand weapon attack per additional arm after the first. Interpretations to the contrary seem strained to the point of absurdity.

"A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands."
Bestiary 4

The term "off hand" has only one meaning in Pathfinder. It is a kind of manufactured weapon attack with specific to hit and damage adjustments.

Likewise, "purposes that require free hands"... you can use a free hand to retrieve something from your pack, raise a potion up to drink it, cast a spell with somatic components, or make an attack (either unarmed or with a weapon).

Pathfinder did away with the arms = attacks thing.

There are literally dozens of examples proving that is untrue.

In order to run a game of Pathfinder a GM needs to know how the rules work. They need to know how the bonuses to hit and damage for any given creature were calculated so that they can adjust them when things are different. Not every Marilith is going to be armed with six longswords. Spells and other effects are going to adjust to hit and damage values constantly... so long as the GM knows how they should interact with the existing values.

Fortunately, the rules for creatures with 3+ arms are perfectly clear... one arm can make a primary weapon attack and all the other arms can make off-hand weapon attacks. From there everything follows the normal rules for attacks of those types (e.g. off-hand melee attacks get +0.5x bonus Str damage).

We know this both because the MWF (and other) rules say it (barring strained 'interpretations' that they mean something else), and because that is how every single stat block with 3+ arms being used for weapon attacks work.

So for all the claims that 'we just cannot know'... any GM who follows the rule that creatures have one primary hand weapon attack and one off-hand weapon attack for each additional arm can work out how the stat blocks for every such creature Paizo has ever published for Pathfinder 1st edition were calculated... which effectively makes that 'the rule'. Even if we pretend that it wasn't obviously so all along.

It is squishy (half the HP of a d6 HD class which lacks good defensive spells), but the main thing is it's more targetable than a book and more expensive to make backups of. You need a few thousand for a stone familiar.

Right, the fact that there is only one specific magic item (which didn't even exist for a few years after the class was introduced) that allows you to 'back up' your spell list is the main thing.

Without that, the familiar dies and suddenly your 10th level Witch is scrambling to find 1st level spells to learn.

The whole process of 'copying' spells from one familiar to another is also a pain. Kill a wizard and you can copy their spellbook. Kill a witch and you have to get their familiar to cooperate in order to get any spells from it... and even then you've only got a day before it reverts to a normal animal and loses all the spells.

It is also just a fairly pointless bifurcation of rules. You need to re-create all the limits and processes around spellbooks for 'spell familiars'... and there are inevitably going to be gaps and then subsequent rules (e.g. spellbook preparation rituals) that need to be somehow shoehorned in or which have to be excluded from the class.

Medium: Should have options to switch spirits and choose the resulting spirit powers as the day progresses rather than having to do so in advance. This would create a much more useful 'jack of all trades' class that can respond to situations as they occur. About to get into a fight? Switch to Champion spirit and give it some influence over you. On a ship and the crew have all been killed? Switch to Trickster with ranks in Profession: Sailor (maybe even channeling one of the dead crew members). Et cetera.

Monk: Should have used existing feats (e.g. TWF & Double Slice) restricted to when performing a Flurry of Blows rather than reinventing the wheel. That would have avoided a lot of confusion on how things worked and allowed those feats to serve as pre-reqs for other options.

Witch: Should have used spellbooks exactly like a Wizard for most of their spells and limited the 'spells in the familiar' mechanic to patron spells.

New Zealand huh? That country with a total population sitting between the Central African Republic and Mauritania? That country with the population density sitting between Papua New Guinea and Niger? That New Zealand?

Yes, the New Zealand with nearly twice the population density of Sweden.

Not a big accomplishment relatively speaking.

So no new cases of the coronavirus for several weeks is "not a big accomplishment"... but Sweden's continued viral growth is a triumph of public health policy.

OTOH, if what people are arguing is:

If we are willing to totally #### the global economy for an indeterminate amount of time, test constantly and lock people down who fail the test (and pay for all that magically), we can lower the death rate.

...and here, finally, we have the real reason for the irrational insistence that Sweden is doing so very well.

A portion of the population have apparently come to believe that taking significant action to stop the spread of the pandemic is bad for the economy. Which is exactly backwards. The worse the pandemic gets, the greater its economic impact will be. This should be obvious, but somehow isn't.

A study of cell phone movement within the US found that people began decreasing their travel BEFORE government imposed lockdowns went into effect, and indeed by the time each state imposed their lockdown the reduction in travel was already at or near its peak. In short, the government lockdowns just formalized what people were doing anyway.

Nor has travel returned to previous levels as the lockdowns have lifted. Many people around the country continue to avoid outside contact as much as possible.

It seems like it should be obvious that many people are going to continue to take precautions so long as there is an ongoing deadly public health threat. Which, again obviously, is going to cause decreased economic activity. Ergo, logically, it seems like you would want to do as much as you can to minimize the public health threat quickly so that economic activity can resume.

...which is why New Zealand has now been able to remove ALL internal restrictions put in place to deal with the outbreak (they are down to just limits on incoming international travel, to prevent reintroduction), while Sweden has actually had to add more (e.g. new restrictions on access to retirement communities). New Zealand is 'back to normal' except for international travel, while people in Sweden are still being directed to limit contact with others.

This is the exact same failure of logic that we have seen with global warming: 'We cannot take action to reduce global warming / spread of the coronavirus. We have to protect the economy!'. Meanwhile, the longer the problem remains unresolved the worse it gets and the greater the economic impact.

The OP didn't specify which aspect(s) of 'regeneration' they were looking for... or indeed really seem to know how they all differed from fast healing, let alone each other. Thus, any and all arguments over which is the 'One True Regeneration' are completely irrelevant.

So, you want to read his post in the way that ensures an argument. That is very interesting.

You're projecting again.

Are there any feats (other then Furious Focus) that enhance power attack?

There are MANY feats that add effects when used with power attack. However, only a few directly impact the attack penalty or damage bonus like Furious Focus; Combat Rhythm, Cornugon Smash, Raging Brutality, Reckless Rage, Tiger Pounce, and Wild Flanking.

Also, the power attack of someone attacking a person using the Caustic Slur feat is enhanced, but that probably isn't what you are looking for.

Are there any other feats for two-handed weapon builds?

It depends a lot on the type of two-handed weapon and other aspects of the build. Feats that would be useful for many two-handed weapon builds include; Cleaving Sweep, Raging Hurler, Steadfast Slayer, Two-Handed Thrower, and Weapon Trick (Two-Handed).

Each of the craft, knowledge, perform, and profession options is effectively a separate skill.

In most cases classes give a class skill bonus to all of the craft, perform, and profession 'sub' skills within a category. There are only a few exceptions to that. Knowledge sub skills, on the other hand, often only have a few which are class skills for a given class.

For instance, a Wizard gets the class skill bonus to all knowledge skills... but a Rogue only gets the bonus to Dungeoneering and Local knowledges.

Take for example, hydro and wind. You can only set them up in a limited number of spots, and not all spots are created equal. Once you've set them up in the best spots, you have not only fewer spots left but also worse ones

This gets complicated because we have two different renewable technologies surging at the same time... in some ways they compete, but in others they complement each other.

I'd argue that if wind were the only disruptive power source right now there would still be plenty of resources available (e.g. offshore wind) for it to rapidly replace coal and natural gas. The only thing which is going to cap its growth is the fact that another technology (solar) is disrupting both the established fossil fuels AND wind. Yet, at the same time, wind and solar can serve as backups for each other (e.g. cloudy days are often windy)... and they both are increasing the usage of hydro power as pumped hydro can store excess wind/solar for later use.

Thus, it is generally easier to look at fossil fuels as a group vs renewables as a group for this transition.

For predicting the future you're looking at complicated unknowns: what i mentioned above is reasons it might grow slower, but it could also grow faster. Once you have X number of electric cars on the road you get more electric car stations which make electric cars better which means more stations which....

And I think a big overlooked thing is once wind and solar start raking in the kind of disposable income petrol does, they'll be able to pool their resources and get the same kind of influence over government that petroleum corporations have now... which is a lot of whats keeping these innovations out. It will be a lot harder because you can't monopolize wind and solar the way you can petroleum.

Indeed, these and other 'feedback effects' are WHY technology transitions follow the pattern (i.e. 'S curves') I described. It will only take a tiny shift to set off massive changes. Think about the thin profit margins of gas stations, ICE repair shops, parts stores, and other 'ancillary' industries... if there are 5% fewer ICE vehicles on the road then those industries all lose 5% of their GROSS income. Suddenly, a lot of them are no longer profitable and have to close... which makes it harder to own an ICE vehicle... which further accelerates the transition.

As the infrastructure for the new technology is getting better that for the old is getting worse. At the same time the balance of market interventions / government support is shifting. And to top it all off, those two factors are adding to improvements in the new technology to drive the cost down... while the cost of the old technology is going up.

None of the links in the post you linked two have any data on global sales figures, one makes a vague reference to market share, but it provides zero information on how that prediction was modeled.

So, you are still claiming things to be true, and not providing evidence to support it.

I literally just quoted it for you.

You've mentioned links a couple of times now. When you say that I 'have not provided any evidence / data' do you mean that I have not linked to outside sources to support the data I am citing?

Setting aside that there are many cases where I have included such links... they also just shouldn't be necessary for readily confirmable facts. You can use a search engine. If you really don't believe me you can check for yourself.

IF your demands for 'evidence' were really demands for links to outside sources, it also would be helpful to specify which information you are unable / unwilling to confirm for yourself.

I want to be real clear here. I don't believe you.

...and do you have any reason to believe the figures I cite are inaccurate? Or is it just general hostility?

At the same time, when Quark Blast says that EV adoption is impossible, I don't believe him either. I think both of you talk out your ass when you are trying to predict the future.

Predicting the future is indeed always difficult. However, I think if you went back through this and similar threads you'd find I've got a much better track record than Quark Blast. For example, five years ago he was saying that wind power was reaching its practical limit and I was saying it was going to experience explosive growth. Guess which happened.

As for electricity generation, this source predicts that by 2050, 49% of electricity generation will come from renewable sources, including hydroelectric.

Notice that they have renewables growing from 28% in 2018 to 40% in 2030 (1% per year)... but then only another 9% over the subsequent 20 years (0.45% per year). In short, they're partially acknowledging the (undeniable) current rapid growth of renewables, but then assuming that it won't continue... renewable growth will slow down.

Why would that happen? Can you think of another disruptive technology that rapidly offset a large portion of a long entrenched market and then slowed down before claiming a majority?

That just isn't how disruptions work. The more the new technology grows, the greater its advantages over the old become. This causes exponential growth until the old technology is only still used for a shrinking minority of slow to change situations.

Automobiles grew slowly for a couple of decades, then exploded to rapidly replace the vast majority of horse transport over a period of 10-20 years, and then slowly whittled the remaining horse transport down to niche markets. Ditto every other technology disruption I can think of. They don't 'slow down in the middle' because there is no logical reason for them to do so.

Also, in the UK the EV market was 2% in 2015 and was 7% in 2019, much slower growth than the examples you gave.

There will of course be variations by country, but those numbers don't seem "much slower" to me. I'd guess that you are looking at the data linearly (i.e. ~1% per year) while I view it exponentially (i.e. doubling every ~2 years).

I wonder how many cars each of these countries has:

UK: ~31 million
Sweden: ~4.8 million
Norway: ~2.75 million
Iceland: ~344,000 (not million)

I guess that's one way to tell a story with statistics... by leaving out a much larger portion of cars and not include them in how you arrived at your conclusion. Maybe if we include Germany, that will help make your case.

Germany: ~46 million cars
EVs: 0.4% of those are EVs

Huh, I guess that's why you didn't cite Germany as proof of your claim. If we pooled all these totals together, the % numbers we could cite would go way down.

The countries I cited were specifically all early movers and the point was that they were following similar trajectories after exceeding ~2% market share. Germany hasn't reached that explosive growth phase yet.

As to your apparent belief that larger populations adopt new technologies more slowly... again, can you cite an example? Did smart phones get adopted in Lesotho much more quickly than they did in Brazil?

Or, how about some predictions? You think that EVs are growing "much slower" in the UK. Based on results thus far there and in the early mover countries, I'd estimate that by 2025 they'll be at around 50% of new sales market share on their way to near total market dominance by 2030... and that's with the current economic slowdown working against them. Where do you think they'll be?

I mean, if we convert to 100% EVs by 2050, but it does nothing to prevent the worst outcomes of 2100, then it doesn't matter.

If we convert to 100% EVs by 2050 then the AGW outcomes in 2100, whatever they may be, will be much better than they would have been if we hadn't. Thus, it very much does matter.

It's literally what you said.

As with our past discussion, you seem to have great difficulty differentiating between what you want me to have said and what I actually said.

Umm... if a graph shows a 'pretty smooth' exponential increase overall, then any 'fits' were too small to change (or even be visible on) the overall trend. Which is essentially MY position on EV growth (e.g. "There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve").

Note the qualifiers... pretty smooth, too small to change, no significant.

If the curve is 'pretty' smooth then, by definition, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

If the 'fits' are 'too small' to change the overall trend then, by definition, they exist and deviate from the trend. So, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

If the the 'fits' are not 'significant' then, by definition, they exist and deviate from the trend. So, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

You quoted those EXACT passages of me saying things that can ONLY mean the data points are NOT a smooth progression and yet somehow stuck firmly to your conclusion that I was saying the opposite.

That isn't rational.

Wow.... your argument here is that since you could plot a smooth curve... therefore, all the data is also smooth.

No, it isn't.

Which terms were confusing to you? Before you say "all of them", how about you pick one that makes the least sense to you. I'll clear it up, and we can go from there.

No. "All of them", is the correct answer.

Your 'analogy' was: "I don't trust the Earth's rotation to solve global warming.

Please tell me why ignoring the Sun's influence in this opinion makes my opinion wrong. (Hint: if you try to use gravity, I can already demonstrate that this would be a false objection)"

That isn't an analogy. You don't explain what ANY of these terms are supposed to be comparable to. Defining the intended comparison for just ONE term wouldn't make it any more comprehensible.

How do the Earth's rotation, global warming, the Sun's influence, and gravity compare to elements of whatever other topic you are supposedly using them as an analogy for?

CB wrote:

...and last year we had "Net Zero" global emissions growth. Not local. Not regional. Not relative.

Tell that to Mauna Loa Observatory for me. See if she listens.

You really are a special kind of hopeless.

YOU wrote, "The preliminary report just released for CO2 emitted last year for energy production is unchanged from 2018..."

You know what another way of saying 'net zero growth' of emissions is? Try, "unchanged" emissions.

Meanwhile, nothing in the Mauna Loa data you linked contradicts what you and I have both said to be the case (i.e. global emissions were unchanged / had net zero growth)... because it doesn't show emissions at all!

It's like you just wander through these conversations taking random positions with no understanding of what you, the people you cite, or anyone else, is actually talking about.

Pathfinder has an official psionics system.

Yes, some people dislike that it is more similar to other magical systems in the game than to the 'point based' systems used in previous editions...but it does exist.

General rule on magic items is that unless specified otherwise, it takes a standard action to activate an item.

Actual rule: "Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all."

For the Eversmoking Bottle the action which triggers 'use' is removing the stopper. Like swinging a sword, the 'use activated' magical effect takes no extra time. Thus, the only question here is how much time does it take to remove the stopper from a bottle.

Another actual rule: "Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action."

So, again... it seems to me that reaching down and removing the stopper from a bottle strapped to your belt (or bandolier or whatever) would be a move action. Even 'Retrieving a stored item' is a move action... so you could reach in to your pack and 'retrieve' the stopper. Further, I'd say that if you already had your hand on it then pulling out the stopper should be a free action.

Yes, 'sneak attack from concealment' is a 'one trick pony'. That's no reason to invent false obstacles against it... and there have been A LOT of them in this thread.

The Crane Style and Misdirection Tactics feat lines can boost defensive fighting. Also Osyluth Guile helps with high Cha. Also, the Aldori Caution and Call for Help traits both seem like perfect fits.

For aid another you might want to consider; Got Your Back, Harrying Partners, In Harm's Way, Virtuous Creed (Protection), Ring of Tactical Precision, Wayfinder of Cooperation, Bastion Banner (Abadar), Effortless Aid, Following in the Footsteps, Helpful (Halfling), and World Weary.

Unified the swarm / troop / army types with detailed rules for going from a single creature to treating a mass of such creatures as a single entity.

I'd let the player declare that they aren't using their full strength bonus / foregoing power attack / whatever, but if after they've nerfed their attack to whatever degree they wish to do so they still end up killing the target then them's the breaks.

Yes, intent matters... but accidents happen.

You are saying that the "normal" text allow them to attack with multiple weapons, while instead, it mean that "If a creature can attack with multiple weapons, it has this modifier".

Funny. I don't see the word "if" anywhere in there.

Note that creatures in the Bestiaries aren't made following the PC rules

Another thing people just 'made up' (proving once again how self-defeating the 'permissive system' claim is) so far as I can determine. My understanding is that the rules are the rules. PCs will almost always be limited to some subset of the available options, but the rules don't work differently for PCs than they do for NPCs.

so they can work differently even without a specific ability if that difference is written in the statblock.

There are always occasional errors and exceptions, but if (for example) an NPC has a potion of a spell that can't normally be made into a potion... it still works just fine when a PC gets hold of it. We don't know how that particular magic item came into being, but the rules for how it works are exactly the same for PCs and NPCs.

If extra limbs translates automatically into extra attacks, why all creatures with extra limbs don't get extra attacks

If this were actual logic it would equally imply that stat blocks of creatures with two arms wielding only one weapon meant that they could not wield two.

but some get several, without any mention of a special attack?

Exactly. In all the stat blocks of creatures wielding weapons with three or more arms there is not a single one listing a special ability allowing them to do that... because it isn't a special ability. It is the "Normal" state for creatures with three or more arms. If it were a special ability then there would be text explaining how it worked in each entry (especially in a 'permissive system').

What is the ability that gives a gargoyle a gore attack without a special ability saying that?

False question. There IS a special ability saying that. See Natural Attacks in the Universal Monster Rules for the specific rules explaining gore attacks. It does not just magically appear in the stat block with no way to figure out how the listed damage dice, to hit, and str damage bonus were determined. There are rules... and they apply exactly the same to NPCs and PCs... despite the fact that none of the early PC races had natural attacks.

...and that is the problem with the 'nope, there is no rule' fiction. It takes away the GM's ability to figure out how attacks with weapons in 3+ arms work. The rules are clearly stated and match every stat block with weapons in 3+ arms ever published... but some people inexplicably insist that GMs ignore these rules and try to make things up themselves if the situation comes up in one of their games.

There are plenty of reasons to not allow PCs to use the multi weapon attack rules in most games... but none of those explain not allowing GMs to use them.

Which book is thay in please?

CRB stands for 'Core Rulebook'

The common terms are right at the front.

Is it explicitly written anywhere that Investigators cannot use spell-trigger items?

Yes, there was a FAQ.

Sneak Attack is 1d6 per two levels. Shocking Grasp is 1d6 per level. The latter grants an additional melee attack.

Um, you've got a few variables missing there;

Sneak Attack is 1d6 per two levels, max 10d6*, and applies to each attack.

Shocking Grasp is 1d6 per level, max 5d6*, and is applied to a single extra attack each round (for a Magus).

*Various options can increase the damage done by either Sneak Attack or Shocking Grasp. There are also various to hit adjustments, situational/positional requirements, and other considerations. However, on the specific issue of base damage dice raised the results are clear;

At 1st level a Magus could be getting two attacks with +1d6 Shocking Grasp to one of them... while a Rogue could be getting two attacks (one with each hand) with +1d6 Sneak Attack to each of them (+2d6 total).

At 5th level a Magus could be getting two attacks with +5d6 Shocking Grasp to one of them... while a Rogue could be getting two attacks with +3d6 Sneak Attack to each of them (+6d6 total).

At 10th level a Magus could be getting three attacks with +5d6 Shocking Grasp to one of them... while a Rogue could be getting four attacks with +5d6 Sneak Attack to each of them (+20d6 total).

Basically, Sneak Attack does the same amount of damage as Shocking Grasp at 2nd and 4th level... and more damage at every level other than those two.

Do the math!

Indeed.

Most of the inland projects, particularly the remote ones, are a net waste of money.

As extensive evidence to the contrary has already been presented, without you making any effort to refute it, this is yet another instance of you sticking to a position you cannot defend.

On shore wind power is currently the least expensive option for most of the planet.

Proving conspiracies is practically impossible but I think any reasonable person would see the Climategate emails (and Judith's and John's testimony) as proof that important journal editors and reviewers are willing to set aside good scientific practice for age-old group think.

Again, this just bears no resemblance to reality. Judith Curry and John Christy are the ones who set aside good scientific practice. Curry by renouncing her own findings when the math proved her wrong. Christy by constantly biasing his findings to support his personal beliefs (e.g. "All God created is precious, and humans are the most precious part of creation." and "Now, some extreme environmentalists, they say that a whale is more important than your child. These people, they want us to live in the Stone Age.")

This chart shows a series of revisions to Christy's temperature trend studies based on errors proven by other researchers. Note that in each case the warming trend went up... somehow every error in his methodology managed to bias the results in the same direction.

Despite their bad science, both have been published extensively (e.g. all of the Christy studies listed on the chart)... further debunking your claims of the great science journal conspiracy that is simultaneously blocking PROOF! that global warming is not happening at all AND that it is much worse than advertised!

As if that weren't so ridiculous that it debunks itself.