thejeff's page

Organized Play Member. 28,814 posts (29,856 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 4 Organized Play characters. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 28,814 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:

To a certain extent, you're talking about Ron Edwards' GNS Theory of role-playing game design. "GNS" refers to the trichotomy of Gamist / Narrativist / Simulationist.

He developed this theory of game design back in the early 2000s over on the now-defunct independent RPG forum The Forge

The outgrowth of this are the three main branches of current RPGs: Story-Games, which emphasize Narrative (e.g.Swords Without Master or Fall of Magic); Old-School Renaissance (OSR) games, which focus on Simulation (e.g. Labrynith Lord or Mothership); and traditional/mainstream games, which have a focus on the rules of the game itself (e.g. Pathfinder or GURPS).

This is, obvuously, an over-simplification of GNS Theory...

Indeed it is. :)

GNS also grew out of the older Threefold Model which I'm more familiar with, since I was reading r.g.f.a back in the late 90s and not reading Forge when GNS was developed. If I understand it correctly, it's similar but with big differences in emphasis. Particularly in that the 3Fold was focused more on styles in terms of running games, recognizing what players want and finding ways to deliver it, while GNS was more focused on designing new games, particularly narrative games since those were rare at the time.


Moved over from the other thread to consolidate.

Interesting Character wrote:

I additionally think that changing DCs to be challenging is bad because it undermines the feeling of being superhuman and also undermines the entire point of leveling. If you need a roll of 10+ regardless of your level, then why have levels? But the former is the more significant in my opinion, if you are a superhuman demigod of jumping, a 20' gap should not be challenging just because the module author wants an obstacle. If the module author wants a jump to challenge the party's superhuman acrobat, then they should make it a jump that every player can easily see is a ridiculous jump that only superhuman being could jump, in which case, the superhuman player then gets to feel like a demigod when they actually succeed.

But if a jump of 20' is challenging no matter your level, then being high level will never feel like a demigod, because doing demigod things will never happen, because ordinary things will always get inflated to challenge what should be a superhuman, making those superhumans nothing more than ordinary humans.

This is, I believe, a misinterpretation of the intent. The point isn't that the same 20' river will have a higher jump DC for higher level characters, but that if you want to challenge higher level characters you need a higher DC - which means you need a bigger river (or some other factor to make it harder to jump).

Similarly locks don't get harder when a high level character approaches them - a high level character needs better locks for them to be the same challenge.

Much like goblins don't get tougher if a high level party stumbles on them, instead the high level winds up fighting giants. They could wipe the ground with a bunch of goblins, but there's not much fun in that so we don't bother with it often.


Gorbacz wrote:
Interesting Character wrote:

Gygax himself had to refer to it as "playing the game" vs "playing the rules"

Look, you keep referring to this as it was something of universal truth. The truth is that Gygax was a guy without a degree who wrote rules that ranged from good to horrible and then kept ignoring them in his games whenever that suited him the best. You'd get an aneurysm playing in his game because he would keep winging things you'd expect to work as the rulebook said and his last week's houserule would work differently this week without him telling you that. In fact, his skill at being a great GM came from his ability to obfuscate his fudging of the rules to keep the story moving along and have The Rule of Cool prevail over math.

You're somewhere on the spectrum, I presume? In that case, I'd suggest you to unlock your brain from being focused on that one random throwaway thing Gary said and read up actual science on game design. There's a high chance that a lot of what you're musing about was already discussed, not by random wargamers on forums, but by actual scholars.

It's certainly possible, but table top rpgs are a very niche and very odd subset of "games" and broader science of game design isn't going to be all that relevant. Scholarly work on RPGs would be interesting (not Computer RPGs, which are a very different animal, despite drawing a lot of the mechanics from table top RPGs.)


captain yesterday wrote:

Guardians of the Galaxy is actually a great example.

With the wrong director or casting and that movie goes from one of greats to completely unwatchable.

Yeah, that's my expectation - try to imitate that "formula" and you'll most likely get drek.


Irontruth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
This doesn't change the fact that the OP is correct, holding an event like this is lunacy.

What event exactly is being held?

Consider for a moment how you might criticize certain political groups for how they've used or ignored factual information about the decisions they've made... then consider how much actual factual information that genuinely exists and inspired this thread.

Is anyone here privy to the language and clauses of GenCon's agreements with the city?

Is anyone here privy to the financial agreements, insurance policies, or other similar business agreements that GenCon has in place?

Is anyone here privy to the laws and regulations of how the city can or cannot make their own decisions about the convention?

How familiar is anyone here with the state law of Indiana concerning declarations that might impact any of the above?

These are just some of the basic facts that would be required to even start actually understanding what will actually happen in the next few weeks or months, and yet currently our discussion about these events has none of those facts.

If you know these facts, I'd be curious to hear what you think the best course of action is for the organizers of GenCon. If you don't know these facts, it would seem to me to be lunacy to declare that you do know what is best.

I think this epidemic is a wonderful time for us all to reconsider how much rampant speculation we engage in when discussing people's lives and livelihoods.

It's simple, faced with the danger of people dying, topics like money, laws, taxes, agreements, clauses and the trickling down wealth which you will never see anyway, are all a secondary, if not tertiary, consideration. The event should be cancelled, even if it means that businesses will go bankrupt or people will lose their jobs. Being alive but unemployed beats being dead every time.

Where exactly did I say they should put lives at risk to protect their money? Please highlight where I actually said that.

Or is it something you ASSUMED about me?

I am suggesting that instead of engaging in wild speculation... we slow down, and look at legitimate information. We stop making accusations about people when we don't actually know what is going on.

Or maybe I should be more like you and accuse you of things you haven't said.

So what are you saying? It appears that you're agreeing that it would be bad to hold it - since you said "as things stand right now, even if the event isn't cancelled... no one should attend", but you're complaining about other people saying it would be bad to hold it?

Or is it something else you're complaining about? I don't think even Gorbacz is attacking them for not having cancelled it yet - only saying that it would be lunacy if they did go ahead and hold it.

You're not the first in this thread to talk about reasons they might not be ready to cancel yet, even if they intend to do so eventually. If you did intend all those questions about we knew about contracts and regulations and the like to mean that maybe they should go ahead, then we are back with "lives at risk to protect money".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

You are free to speculate about how high your horse is as well. I'm just not terribly impressed.

I agree, that as things stand right now, even if the event isn't cancelled... no one should attend. If you need me to pat you on the back for reaching the conclusion, here you go... good job on that observation, I think it's spot on.

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of saying that we shouldn't criticize them for holding it, while still saying no one should attend. Because we should know full well, that if they hold it, people will come. We've seen enough of that in recent days.

I do understand, in broad strokes if not in detail, the potential problems with Gencon cancelling on their own, which is of course why I want the relevant authorities to cancel such events rather than leaving it up to the event organizers. That simplifies the legal issues.

Several people here have commented on the reasons Gencon might have for not yet making an announcement.


Planpanther wrote:
Let rise the era of the virtual con!

Yeah, I hope that, even while they haven't officially decided to cancel, they're working on plans for a virtual version. Won't be the same, but could still be cool.


mildly annoyed Vidmaster7 wrote:
Dragon con is the one I expect to see then continue with. GA is like No.1 on the lets hurry up and get rid of all the dead so we can go back to making money.

Labor day is a long way away. It's hard to say what things will look like by then, especially since we can't predict the political decisions.

Even Georgia may react to it getting really bad there by trying to shut down again.


Aberzombie wrote:
Currently, I'm rereading one of my favorite novels of all time, the sci-fi classic Destination: Void, by one of my favorite authors of all time, Frank Herbert.

I should hunt that down. I've read The Jesus Incident, which was a sequel, but not that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
uafbum wrote:
It's been a while since I read book six (my campaign died out due to life issues near the end of book 3), but isn't there some time travel elements that could negatively impact the party? It sets them up for a paradox if they aren't able to go back in time and wake themselves up from the fugue state. You could run it so that, in destroying the Stelae, they are sucked into Carcosa with bonuses? Or maybe it shunts them to the final chapter of book six (modified for level obv) so that they get the closure of the loop on waking up from the fugue state. This would focus more on the whole "shunted through time" part of book six, expanding on that aspect rather than Carcossa itself. Just some idle thoughts while I wait for the caffeine to kick in this morning :)

Theoretically, but if they skip book 6, they'll never know they were the ones who supposedly woke them up at the start, so there'll be no apparent paradox.

They'll miss out on a cool little plot twist, but not in a way that'll ruin anyone's game.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It's good to get your start with 'evergreen' adventures; there's several of them, most of which are for 1st-level characters.

Is there really a point in focusing on the evergreens?

I mean, they're certainly good to have if you've played a lot and scenarios you can play are scarce, but to the point of waiting for them when there are other scenarios you can play with the same character?

Even more to replay them instead of new scenarios?


rknop wrote:

The real question about July is: will the uptick in corona virus cases and deaths that is going to result from too many states and cities opening up right now going to have made it into the statistics in time for people to realize that we're still in a lot of trouble?

(Unless there really is something about this virus that makes it go inactive in warm summer months, in which case the fall is really going to suck. However, given that at least some countries in the Southern Hemisphere have seen COVID cases, I doubt the summer will really suppress it all by itself.)

Hard for me to see how it won't. A lot of the places talking about opening up are already not looking so good, if you actually dig into the data. Total numbers are low relative to NY, but that's misleading.

If we open up now, that's nearly 3 months before Gencon - which is plenty of time for the numbers to spike. For perspective, 3 months ago, we hadn't spotted any community spread in the US.


Kevin Trafton wrote:

I guess I'd like to draw the contrast between PaizoCon and GenCon. Paizo made a swift and decisive move to cancel their convention and then spends 100s of hours organizing an online version for which they will receive little monetary benefit (major props and love, though). GenCon seems to be ready to pass out the Clorox inhalers in order to keep their convention on track. I'm wondering if there has been any financial and/or legal pressure put upon GenCon's major partners such as Paizo to toe the line?

PaizoCon is much earlier and it was clear early on that late May wasn't going to be safe. It's less clear what the end of July is going to look like - though my Magic 8-Ball isn't hopeful.

Also, we're actually farther out now from GenCon than we were from PaizoCon when it was cancelled, so there's time for them to act.


Irontruth wrote:
Pretty sure his NY comment was sarcasm. Or were you looking for something to disagree with, and so you decided to take it literally in order to prove that you're right?

I read it literally to.

If it was sarcasm, was the Sweden will be fine part sarcasm as well, and thus his entire point about Sweden?


Marc Radle wrote:

True ... but threads really should stick to their topics. If there’s nothing new going on at the moment, then I guess my question is why do folks feel the need to post at all in the thread? There are plenty of other threads here to post in, why not just let threads about a specific topic remain about that topic?

It’s pretty frustrating to see that there are multiple new posts in a thread you are interested in so you click in to read them, only to find that none of them have anything to do with the topic.

Don’t get me wrong - I LOVE Star Trek, and would love to discuss all the different shows at length, but not in a thread about Marvel.

Maybe that’s just me?

Because threads drifts, like conversations do.


Magic Cop - Hark Ah Lien

He sees ghosts. Always has, though it was more vague impressions before. Still it was enough to help with the job, passed off as 'hunches'. Even he didn't believe it was anything magical.

Until that day. Hark and his partner were tracking down a particularly brutal hit man, but something found them first. It ripped his partner to shreds and laughed at his bullets, but as he screamed at it in rage he tapped into some power inside and sent the thing away.

The killings stopped. The case closed. Details hushed up. He's never quite known whether the brass know about this kind of thing, but he does get assigned all the weird cases now. He's tried to learn what he could, from old books and sometimes from the ghosts. They're clearer now and easier to see. He's even exorcised a few hostile ones, but nothing like what he saw that night.

He's still watching though. And wondering why some kind of monster was carrying out Triad hits.

Much delayed. I was trying to do the background in first person and it just wouldn't come out right. This worked better.
Not quite as over the top as the first two, but a cop can be a little more grounded - even with magic and monsters.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


OTOH you have Sweden and they have aptly shown (verdict not in but looking real good at present) that the global economic recovery may not need to wait until the middle of next year to get fully underway.

Verdict not completely in, but looking much worse than any of their neighbors at present.

Last I looked, the Swedish curve hadn't even started to flatten.

True, but the science they're banking on is that the area under the curve is the same whether you flatten it or not. So the only thing they need to do is keep it "flat" enough so that they don't overwhelm healthcare in the short term.

Same amount of people are going to die either way. But the Swedish way doesn't totally #### ## the national economy.

We'll see. If the curve doesn't bend, it ain't going to be flat enough.


Quark Blast wrote:


OTOH you have Sweden and they have aptly shown (verdict not in but looking real good at present) that the global economic recovery may not need to wait until the middle of next year to get fully underway.

Verdict not completely in, but looking much worse than any of their neighbors at present.

Last I looked, the Swedish curve hadn't even started to flatten.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nah, not with you. Not when it's this blatantly obvious. You're attacking CB for not using the same words to describe the same thing.

Spin-down is not shutdown. Idle is not shutdown.

PSA for thejeff:

Shutdown happens when a plant is being decommissioned or when a major PM needs to be done.

Other people are welcome to use their own terms but they need to specify the change in context. Because, as given above, shutdown doesn't at all mean either spin-down or idle.

See? Elevating the conversation isn't that hard. Now you try...

And it was perfectly clear from context "shut down / started back up to follow demand. They take a lot of time (and money) to start and stop" what was meant - not decommissioning or major PM (whatever that is) what was meant - even if you're right on the terminology.

And the whole point that you were trying to distract from is that it's expensive to do that with coal plants, which is why they don't most of the time, even if they have to run at a loss. Coal and nuclear supply base load. Natural gas and oil plants are cheap to ramp up or idle down, so they're used for peak load.

Now, if you want to challenge that claim, go ahead. At the moment, it seems like you're just trying to deflect from being wrong.

I actually agree with the whole bolded portion. Hence my confusion at your initial lame lashing out at an uncontroversial portion of my prior post.

Shutdown = shutdown. Spin-down or idle = ramp down to lower output in periods of reduced demand.

There's never no demand, hence shutdown only happens at decommissioning and major PMs.

There is never no demand, but there may be no demand that can't be met by cheaper sources than your coal plan, so you either sell below your cost (in the short term) or take the expensive step of idling your plant.

That it's expensive to do so (and not quick, either to idle or bring back up again) is why your whole point about the "coal plant that can just spin-down/idle to match demand" is wrong. However you misread CB, you're just wasting our time deflecting from being wrong. Again.

Luckily, I have time to waste.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nah, not with you. Not when it's this blatantly obvious. You're attacking CB for not using the same words to describe the same thing.

Spin-down is not shutdown. Idle is not shutdown.

PSA for thejeff:

Shutdown happens when a plant is being decommissioned or when a major PM needs to be done.

Other people are welcome to use their own terms but they need to specify the change in context. Because, as given above, shutdown doesn't at all mean either spin-down or idle.

See? Elevating the conversation isn't that hard. Now you try...

And it was perfectly clear from context "shut down / started back up to follow demand. They take a lot of time (and money) to start and stop" what was meant - not decommissioning or major PM (whatever that is) what was meant - even if you're right on the terminology.

And the whole point that you were trying to distract from is that it's expensive to do that with coal plants, which is why they don't most of the time, even if they have to run at a loss. Coal and nuclear supply base load. Natural gas and oil plants are cheap to ramp up or idle down, so they're used for peak load.

Now, if you want to challenge that claim, go ahead. At the moment, it seems like you're just trying to deflect from being wrong.


Nah, not with you. Not when it's this blatantly obvious. You're attacking CB for not using the same words to describe the same thing.


Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Did I say "shut down"? I don't recall saying that.
You said "spin down/idle". In responding I described the same situation as "shut down". I'm allowed to use my own phrasing, and regardless of which words you choose... it still costs them a lot of time and money and thus they generally don't do it in reaction to production fluctuations.

Sure! You can use your own phrasing. If you like talking to yourself.

But if you're going to engage in dialog you might want to stick to the topic at hand. You know? Like normal people do.

It's kind of funny. I was getting frustrated with the lack of comprehension in the back and forth between CB and IT, then QB jumps back in and we get to see what real incoherence looks like again.


Somehow didn't see this until now, but I'm always up for some Feng Shui. Some kind of cop, I think, but I'll have to ponder a bit.


Irontruth wrote:

I never claimed a date.

I quoted the scientists and their claims. If you are arguing with me, you are arguing with those claims by those scientists.

You didn't, but QB did and it apparently wasn't backed up by his sources.

You digressed into what "significant destruction" meant.


Quixote wrote:

My point is and has always been that total darkness, blindness and invisibility are all very similar: you can't see your opponent.

The fact that location a foe while blinded or in total darkness involves an extra 20 tacked into the DC--exactly the same as the bonus you get from invisibility--seems to suggest the original designers saw the similarity as well.

I think a far simpler, more streamlined ruling would just combine them all into one "Zero Visibility" rule, instead of having to look at two skills, a spell, a condition, combat and two environmental rules and piecing together all relevant elements and discarding the irrelevant and redundant ones. But it's a big, bulky system and editing existing material isn't going to net sales like new content will, so I get it.

Yeah, I can see that and I was willing to work with it, but I'm much happier with explicit rules for.

Particularly since there are a lot of specific weirdnesses with the invisibility rules themselves I'd rather not import into this arena.


Quixote wrote:

I didn't misread anything; I read what was written, which was a quoted text and a conclusion seemingly drawn from it.

But okay. Good. I thought Pathfinder left out a fairly substantial bit of rules from 3.5.

So...just like ininvisibility, then. +20 to Stealth, -20 to Perception, must beat DC by 20 or more. All the same.

Are you blind/is your opponent invisible? Stealth +20

Has your opponent attacked using sniping rules? Stealth -20.

Has your opponent attacked without using sniping rules? Stealth set to 0.
(although, you could argue by RAW that "cannot use Stealth means an auto-fail, not just 0)

So the Perception DC to pinpoint = Stealth roll or 20.
So if your Stealth modifier is less than 20, don't use it.

I guess you could see it as just like invisibility, but I'd rather leave invisibility out entirely, since the rules don't require the analogy to invisibility, since they're spelled out here.


The Darkness section of the Environmental rules continues after the bit Halcyon Janissary quoted to say "It’s almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature’s square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature)."

This is official for Darkness. Perception vs Stealth to 'hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.”' Beat the DC by 20 to reveal the square.

These are the actual rules we thought didn't exist and were trying to get to by analogy with blindness and invisibility.

This also avoids stacking the invisible creature's +2 attack bonus and the blinded one's -2 to AC.

Perhaps you misread me originally: When I said the "pinpoint check is official", I did mean with the +20 to the base DC.


Halcyon_Janissary wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Another related question, that would apply to invisible creatures as well: if you fail the pinpoint check, do you have any idea where they are? Perhaps you have a small area effect spell you're hoping to catch them in?

From the SRD

"A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents’ Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.”

Unfortunately this appears to be pretty much GM fiat. Since I'm comfortable with arbitrary rulings I'd allow the characters success on the perception check to define a scope of area.

If one were attempting to get as RAW as possible and extrapolating the perception rules one could define each 10 ft of possible space from the target for each point by which the perception check failed by. So if you failed by one you could get within 10 ft, by two within 20 ft, and so on. By the time one hits -5 it may make more sense to simply indicate a compass direction from the character.

Personally I think that's a little harsh and would make it a diff of 3 (so on a DC of 28 a roll of 27-25 gets you in 10 ft, 24-22 gets you within 20, 21-19 gets you within 30 ft)

Oh hey, those are the actual dealing with darkness rules we've been looking for. Under "Environmental Rules", not "Vision and Light", where I'd expect. That certainly helps.

So the pinpoint check is official. Darkness meaning blinded is official. Looks like the base DC is stealth - or 0 if they're not being stealthy. No need to fold the invisibility rules in to get an extra +20 (I can rationalize that by it being harder to find something when you can clearly see there isn't anything there, than when it's dark and there could be because you can't see anything.)

The only real fiat part left is how to guess if you don't make the pinpoint roll, which I can handle most of the time.


Another related question, that would apply to invisible creatures as well: if you fail the pinpoint check, do you have any idea where they are? Perhaps you have a small area effect spell you're hoping to catch them in?

I think by RAW, we're back to guess.

Much of this was made more complicated in the game we just had because it was the GM trying to find us and he obviously knew where we were. In past encounters when we fought things we couldn't see, we could just guess and try things. Hard to do when you know.


Interesting.
One bit of conflict there that I'd missed before is that under the Vision/Lighting rules it says "creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks."
While the Blinded rules say "and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail."

As I understand it, that +20 to pinpoint comes entirely from Invisibility. Seems weird to bring that in while saying it's not invisibility.

Still: Pinpoint an enemy 40' away in darkness casting spells: -4 for distance, -4 blind, +10 for in combat, -20 for pinpoint would be an -18 penalty

The 15 you're using as a base seems completely arbitrary. I'd rather use the Invisibility -20 penalty, since it at least comes from somewhere. Of course, if we're looking at invisibility that has a +20 for in combat or speaking, so it would make sense to use that instead of Perceptions 10 for "hear the sounds of battle",

Which I think gets me a base 20 DC +4 for distance, +4 blind, -20 for in combat, +20 for pinpoint would be an 28 DC.

Seems very weird to me to stack the Blind penalties with the one from invisibility though. If that's the intent it seems like it should made clear.


Quixote wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
...while using Stealth while engaging in ranged combat is difficult, and even impractical in the OP's situration, it isn't impossible, as I showed.

Sure. Wasn't the point of the post at that time.

I'm fairly confident that passage from the stealth skill means you cannot use the skill *while attacking*, meaning at the *exact* same time. You can use stealth, attack and use stealth again at the stated penalties over the course of a full round. Obviously. It's listed right there under possible modifiers.

I'm not aware of any modifier to stealth for attacking, other than the special exception of sniping.

There's an "in combat" modifier to the chance of finding someone who's invisible, which I referenced earlier, but that's not likely to apply when you're being stealthy.


Quixote wrote:

I don't see a -20 penalty. They have a +20 for being invisible and cannot actively use the skill, so 0+20. Attacking and all that is why they're at 0 initially; it doesn't penalize them twice.

According to the RAW, a creature that is actually invisible attacking a creature that is actually blind gets a +2 to hit a -2 AC. But since, by RAW, no one is blind or invisible, we can skip over that.

And yes, I'd say being effectively blind in the darkness would levy a -4 to that DC20 perception check.

Cannot actively use what skill? Stealth?

Under the Invisibility condition, the table of Perception DC modifiers includes "In combat or speaking -20".

Of course, that may offset the fact that it's normally a 20DC to notice there's an invisible creature about and a +20 to pinpoint them, which is what we're trying to do. Which would put us back to a 20 to pinpoint the one attacking from darkness.
Part of the whole "How does invisibility really work" question, I guess.

Still, I've got a lot of trouble accepting any of this as RAW. No one is actually invisible or blind. Those are specific rules conditions. There's no rule I'm aware of equating total concealment to invisibility - other than invisibility being one thing granting concealment.
It's not an unreasonable approach, I'm just kind of surprised there isn't something explicit about it.


Okay, let me lay out a scenario and see if I've got it right.

There's an enemy in darkness 40' from me, shooting at me out of the darkness. Obviously, they're not using stealth since they're attacking. I don't believe that counts as stationary either. So, to target their square, I need a Perception check: Base DC 0, +20 for invisible, +4 for distance. If I locate them, I can target their square with an area spell or I can close and attack. Trivial Acrobatics check to move full speed once in the dark. (Arguably, if they're considered "in combat" or speaking, there's a -20 penalty, so it's only a DC 4 Perception)

Once I'm there though, I've got a 50% miss chance. Do the -2 AC for being blind and the opponent's +2 to hit for being invisible both apply?

If I start in the Darkness, does the -4 for Blindness apply to the Perception check to locate?


Quixote wrote:

Invisibility, darkness, fog and blindness all work the same in this exact situation. An invisible foe is not somehow less visible than a foe you're trying to detect while blinded.

Fighting in the dark with people who can see in the dark while you can't is a sucker's game at best. Change the status quo or die. Or get crazy lucky.

You would think it would work the same, but it would be nice if there was actually some indication in the rules that it did. Or that blinded didn't appear to function completely differently (-4 perception penalty?)

And in this case, we were the ones using darkness, so no need for us to come up with ways around it.

Frankly, by these suggested rules, it's not that bad. DC 20 Perception checks aren't hard for most of us - and it should be much less if they're fighting. The miss chance sucks, but it's not nearly as bad as not being able to find where the enemies are.


Hmmm, maybe. Though Blinded only gives a -4 on Perception checks. Except for things that rely on vision, which automatically fail.

Invisibility gives a -20 modifier for in combat or speaking. Can you target a speaking creature with a DC of 0? Or just the range penalty if you're trying to attack from range?

Of course, we're now entering the usual "How the hell does invisibility really work?" debate.


blahpers wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's awkward and badly written, but officially there's an argument to be made that you can't:

Quote:
A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).
Quote:
Concealment: To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

Darkness provides concealment, so therefore anything that has an area of darkness between you and it has concealment and can't be seen.

This is obviously nonsense and I'd never actually run it that way, but it's hard to get anywhere else from the rules themselves.

I'm okay with magical darkness working that way - though I'd also be okay with it just being like normal darkness.

First reaction: Line of sight is a mechnical term that isn't necessarily connected to whether something can be seen.

Second reaction: Of course, that would mean that even if Helen the human could see Egodriel the elf, Helen couldn't cast magic missile on Egodriel because even though Helen can see Egodriel, she doesn't have line of sight. That's kinda weird.

Third reaction: Then again, if the darkness isn't actually limiting normal sight in this case, is line of sight really blocked?

I'm okay with rationalizing based on #3.

My real first reaction: Damn the concealment rules are a hot mess.

It's basically caused by lumping different things together under "provides concealment". Fog provides concealment and it makes sense you can't see through it. Darkness provides concealment when you're within it, but it makes no sense at all you can't see through it.


We got in a fight in a recent setting where the party had Darkness up and Darkvision to see through it. Unlike some previous fights, this one largely stayed at range with our opponents understandably unwilling to charge into the dark to try to find us. The GM had trouble how to tell if they could figure out even roughly where we were. And I haven't been able to find anything clear on it either.

50% miss chance for concealment is easy, once you can target a given square, but what's the perception check to pick the square? Is it the same as Invisibility, (whatever that actually comes out to be)? Can you just not do it unless they're right next to you?

Am I missing some clear rule?


It's awkward and badly written, but officially there's an argument to be made that you can't:

Quote:
A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).
Quote:
Concealment: To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

Darkness provides concealment, so therefore anything that has an area of darkness between you and it has concealment and can't be seen.

This is obviously nonsense and I'd never actually run it that way, but it's hard to get anywhere else from the rules themselves.

I'm okay with magical darkness working that way - though I'd also be okay with it just being like normal darkness.


Aberzombie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The Acanti are whale analogues. The sharks are smaller but the Brood still use them - just as the equivalent of fighters or scout ships.

I have an old issue of Uncanny X-Men where Havok and Polaris come across a crashed Star Shark.

Yeah, that led into the Brood Mutants story, which was pretty bad, imo.

You can also see some of the sharks in the original Brood story arc, though they were basically just background images and didn't get the focus the Acanti did.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Acanti are whale analogues. The sharks are smaller but the Brood still use them - just as the equivalent of fighters or scout ships.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
We have the luxury of not have a business to be responsible for, one that employs dozens of people. Like many “small businesses” Paizo may have to make some compromising decisions to ensure their survival, both physically and economically. It’s easy to say that a person’s life trumps all when you don’t also have to be responsible for their livelihood.

It's also easy to not be responsible for other people's lives when you're not at risk and it makes more money for you. Which I don't think applies to Paizo, but it is a reason for not just leaving this up to individual business owners to decide what to do.

In which context, I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how Paizo's plans comply with the Governor's order quoted above.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I also wouldn't want to take Amazon as a model for responsibility and concern for worker safety.


Irontruth wrote:

So you don't know what a dichotomy is. Neat.

Also:

CBDunkerson wrote:


WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

You said that the economic system is irrelevant. China is communist. That is an economic system where the government has massive control over the economy.

For your statement to be correct, the Chinese government's economic decisions must be irrelevant to the outcome of climate change. If they are relevant, then your statement is incorrect.

China is really only nominally communist at this point. Sure, the government has massive control over the economy, but they're also tied deeply into international trade, which is "capitalist". The same market forces apply to them. Much more so than back in the 60s and 70s, when they were much more economically isolated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:

I wouldn't worry about Paizo too much. PDF sale might not be the biggest pillar their business is based on, but it's an already established pillar (server, website and offers exist) and it can scale relatively easy. I am pretty sure some people will increase PDF usage - question is just how many.

If they get into financial problems, there are still a few options. Patreon comes to my mind, also an old-fashioned investor. These options create their own problems, of course, but at least they exist. Finally, even if the company breaks down (which would be a real loss), it's totally possible that the hard core keeps going, albeit at a much smaller scale. Can't say much about the smaller companies out there.

Things might look grim now, but actually it could turn out well for Paizo and the hobby: New players and GMs as well as people more used to PDFs. I totally get if someone is not in the mood for such thoughts, though...

A lot of the smaller companies are far more focused on digital rather than hardcopy distribution.

Still, I think the larger problem for most will be the general economic downturn, not so much the specifics of selling hardcopies.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.

I propose a plan to let Jupiter solve global warming for us.

Yes or no, do you trust that plan to work?

I trust your plan to be irrelevant.

That is, global warming is going to be 'solved' by other factors. So, in a sense, we could say that your plan will 'work' in that global warming will end up being solved... but in truth your plan will have nothing to do with achieving that outcome.

Capitalism, like the planet Jupiter, is not going to stop global warming. However, it also isn't going to prevent global warming from being stopped. It's irrelevant to the issue.

Just trying to keep us all on the same page, this is with the understanding that capitalism and market forces aren't the same thing - or even closely linked.

Capitalism is irrelevant, but marker forces aren't.

Is that what you're saying?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
If you think capitalism has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions, then essentially you agree with me that it isn't a trustworthy solution.

Your 'logic' here is... not.

The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.

But again, you're using different definitions of "capitalism" here.


Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I think overall what you're trying to say is that left to itself capitalism won't save us, but that government action will be necessary to sufficiently cut green house gas emissions. Which I largely agree with.

Again, I'd disagree that capitalism has anything to do with it (e.g. communist countries need to cut emissions too)... and the rest of this is largely a matter of definitions.

Whether communist countries have to cut emissions or not is irrelevant to whether capitalism can solve GHG emissions.

If you think capitalism has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions, then essentially you agree with me that it isn't a trustworthy solution.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Either way, the problem IS going to be resolved as a result of people switching to less expensive technologies (i.e. 'market forces') that also happen to be less polluting. Market interventions in either direction just shift the margins.

Then you would appear to reverse course here.

You use bad logic and contradict yourself all in one post.

Just be clear here, you're using different definitions of "capitalism" here, so CB isn't saying what you think he's saying.


graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Now imagine telling someone “use this emulator to run it” and being asked “what’s an emulator?”

I don't have to imagine: this thread has already gone over that. This thread has made it clear it's a program that allows you to use pathbuilder, the program in question: nothing else needs to be known. That and I've already gone over the steps. I don't know the nuts and bolts of howit works but I don't have to: download it and it works.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
It’s all about speaking the same language as who you’re working with.
That isn't an issue: we're talking about someone that's gotten here and read the thread. That is ALL the know how you need. you had to have the equivalent of “what’s your Reflex save?" if you where going to use pathbuilder if it was made for other platforms, so bluestack is a simple other step, not a new language. If you could download a program for PC you can download bluestack: not rocket surgery but adding another step you can already do.

So what we're doing here is hassling someone who didn't remember or overlooked comments from a couple months ago because they'd looked at Pathbuilder and saw it only ran on Android. And you didn't even start with "Hey, did you know you can run Android apps on other platforms using Bluestack. It's easy and straightforward." Nope, you just told them they were wrong.


Squiggit wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


I had to support a user who needed email on his smartphone, and when I told him to press the button to open settings his response was “how do I do that?” Had to really shift my headspace to get him set up.
I mean in fairness, there's a difference between asking someone to open settings and that person asking for help because they don't know how and asking someone to open settings and them insisting that opening settings requires too much tech savvy and is therefore impossible and beyond consideration for the average user and that you're an ivory tower elitist for even bringing it up.

But it might be closely linked to someone looking at a tool that only runs on Android and not even considering that it might be possible to run it on another platform with an emulator.

Especially when the first response is just "Wrong" with no mention of emulators or that there might be any technical challenge in setting it up.
I don't think most were saying it wouldn't be possible, just that many wouldn't even think of it. It's not "ivory tower elitism" to suggest it, but it is a mistake to think that because it's easy and obvious to you, that it's equally easy and obvious to someone without the same technical background.

Also, while Bluestacks has been mentioned in this thread before, the last mention was two months before this kerfuffle blew up, so it's somewhat forgivable not to notice or remember it.


I've been trying to understand you, with little success. And you've repeatedly misunderstood me. (See last evening's little go around.)

I still don't really understand what you mean by "Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?"

I think overall what you're trying to say is that left to itself capitalism won't save us, but that government action will be necessary to sufficiently cut green house gas emissions. Which I largely agree with.

OTOH, CB is right to point out that currently the switch to renewables is being driven more by market forces and that is likely to increase, while the bulk government action has actually been supporting the fossil fuel industry (especially if you consider the various petro-states). I would throw in the caveat that the relatively small amounts of government support for renewables have worked as "seed capital", helping renewables get to the competitive point they're reaching now.

1 to 50 of 28,814 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>