thejeff's page

Organized Play Member. 28,294 posts (29,226 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 28,294 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ixal wrote:

Thats not how modern or scifi armies work. You do boot camp, you get the standard issue equipment. And why would you equip an army with lvl 1 weapons and armor?

"Standard issue" is the level 1 stuff. Or maybe levels 1-4

You would equip an army with it because an army is by definition a lot of people, which means equiping them with level 1 weapons is cheap.

Why would you buy 1 random person an 80,000 credit rifle when you could buy 1,000 people an 80 credit rifle?

Same reason you wouldn't equip Pathfinder characters starting in a Pathfinder army with +5 weapons and armor.

I suspect that the higher level tech stuff quickly becomes essentially custom made speciality items. There just aren't a lot of customers out there willing to spend 80,000 credits for a rifle and the production techniques for that are complex enough you can't bring the cost down dramatically. (handwaving away the "you can just make anything out of UPBs" argument)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ixal wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ixal wrote:

I wonder how the starting equipment will work.
I doubt there will be any special rules for this in the AP, but it makes no sense that members of a military force are limited by both credits and level for the armor and weapon they are given.

We do NOT hand the new guy the thermodetonator.

We like to let people see if they'll blow themselves up with a grenade or 3 before we see if they'll blow everyone up with the thermodetonator.

Thats not how modern or scifi armies work. You do boot camp, you get the standard issue equipment. And why would you equip an army with lvl 1 weapons and armor?

We also don't have equipment that scales nearly so hugely as Starfinder equipment. Or characters that do so, for that matter.

If it bothers you, maybe you could assume that as "the only survivors of a doomed military battalion", the PCs have drained or lost their better gear and are running off of scavenged armor and weapons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually didn't mind Thor in Infinity War - there were a few moments, but overall his arc there was okay. Endgame was bad. Maybe they can recover with him off with the Guardians, but signs aren't hopeful.

And yeah, while the Gamora death was decent and arguably necessary, I'm not at all sold on dealing with the time-displaced one.

Marc Radle wrote:

I very much prefer Thor as the dramatic, serious, almost Shakespearean figure in the earlier films. This new, comedic, light-hearted, almost goofy Thor really gets under my skin.

I get the Hemsworth is a funny guy, but I don’t like Thor as a funny guy.

I know Ragnarok did well, but I hate what it did to the character of Thor. It almost feels like two different characters ...

I agree.

I didn't like what happened with Thor.

I could live with it if I felt it was the midpoint of a character arc and he was going to recover, but at this point it doesn't feel like it. He's played as funny and mostly as the butt of the joke, not the joker.

Somehow I lost track and missed this thread. Sorry.
Since I'm checking in late, I'll pick up whoever is left, which looks like Brad?
A religious black baseball player is a bit out of my normal mode, but for a short adventure it'll be fun to stretch.

Not at all sure "someone old preys on the young" is really an obvious metaphor for homosexuality. Maybe incest. Or maybe just the very common idea of older men hitting on younger women. And if we're talking Stoker, that's not really folklore. From what I know the sexual aspect doesn't figure much in at least the central European vampire folklore. There are lots of vampire like things around the world though, so it might well crop up.

I think the Centaurmachy legend predates the Persian wars - though later written accounts of it could have been influenced by them.

I'm not really arguing the central point or what fantasy often does with them, but I'm not really seeing these particular connections.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thecursor wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:

Should writers be allowed to take that chance or should any material that's tainted with that be written off as poisoned?

In all fairness to the genre: fantasy is where problematic folklore goes to rehab.

Most mythological, folklore, or fairy tale creatures are steeped in the casual racism and sexism of the age they were born in. Fairies, for instance, were used as a way to explain everything from Down's Syndrome to racial differences. Witches were one long high concept fantasy dismissal of the female orgasm. Centaurs and Giants were both folklore ways to explain how killing foreigners is morally just because they aren't human. Vampires are all about homosexuality, promiscuity, and a loss of purity, Werewolves were all about a loss of social control and birth defects.

What allowed all of these concepts to become accepted as literary devices is the hard work of good writers.

I have zero doubt that the Starfinder team will handle Reptoids with the same careful respect that rehabs their concepts into something more palatable.

Sources for any of that? Centaurs represented barbarism to the Greeks as far as I know, but that's not quite the same. Sexualised vampires seem to come from literature, not the older folklore and in neither the folklore or the early literature am I aware of any specific link to homosexuality.

CBDunkerson wrote:

The targets set in the 2016 Paris Agreement are supposed to be reviewed and updated every five years. So... in two years we'll see whether most countries stick with what they have, scale back, or commit to greater carbon reductions.

Given the technology and industry trends over the past three years I'd think the result was already a foregone conclusion. For example;

Indiana chooses renewables over natural gas. Shutting down coal plants early to save $4 billion.

When coal states abandon coal, what is there really left to debate?

Would have been a foregone conclusion perhaps. Hopefully by then we'll have a US government that wants back in. And no others in the agreement that have gone crazy by then.

Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

So the answer to my question is "no."

You think you are informing us of a problem that we are unaware of. Because if we were aware of it, you wouldn't be documenting the "inevitable realization."

Well, I think the dispute is more whether the agreements are "a total canard".

QB seems to think they are and they're the best we're ever going to get and thus they're at best a waste and possibly a trick.

Others they were a step in the right direction that could be built on, even if they didn't go far enough.

This is why I like you (so far as I know you that is), as you actually read for comprehension!

CB I swear reads for incomprehension and the other(s)... well just plain old ###hattery AFAICT.

And yet I mostly agree with CB and Irontruth here. Even on their takes on what you write.

I'll give it a shot. I've always been fond of Call of Cthulhu. Never played the Gumshoe version.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I really don't like the level of avengers/tony stark/nick fury level of involvement in spidermans life. Under the mask spideys always been a street level regular person and trying to be a superhero kind of messes with their life. Having the nick fury/avengers/ironman on speeddial at his fingertips takes away from that a fair bit.
I'm fine with this given we've had so many Spiderman movies with him as that street level guy. Now that we can have huge crossovers with more of the Marvel universe I think it makes sense to make those movies even if we don't get to see that struggling fly-by-night hero as much. (Homecoming was a good blend of both, I think.)

I can live with that aspect, but I'd rather have him less dependent on Stark and the Avengers. And less hero-worshippy and eager to please. (Especially back in Homecoming.)

I get it. In this continuity he's both a kid and new. He's a second generation hero, essentially. But it feels wrong. Parker started young, but he was still one of the early heroes with as much experience as practically anyone. His attitude's always reflected that.

Plus, having his motivation focused around Stark and not to Uncle Ben is just completely wrong. They didn't have to show that - since we've seen it so many times before, but it all makes Spider-man a very different character.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Also, with respect to the dragons, they would also need unfeasibly huge chest muscles to power the wings.

In fact you quickly reach the point where adding muscle and wing span increases the weight more than the added wing span can lift or the muscle can power.

All these things basically work in fantasy by Rule of Cool - we want dragons and giants to be like the ones in legend, not some warped pseudo-science version.

Irontruth wrote:

So the answer to my question is "no."

You think you are informing us of a problem that we are unaware of. Because if we were aware of it, you wouldn't be documenting the "inevitable realization."

Well, I think the dispute is more whether the agreements are "a total canard".

QB seems to think they are and they're the best we're ever going to get and thus they're at best a waste and possibly a trick.

Others they were a step in the right direction that could be built on, even if they didn't go far enough.

Thomas Seitz wrote:


I'm more inclined to think Thor will try to find a way to match/gather his own kind of Thor Force because he's clearly not had much time with the Odin Force...

But with regards to Aaron's run, I'm pretty sure this is his last arc...

One way or another, the modern Thor won't have the Odinpower. At least for long.

You can do an arc with it, but not that level of power for a main character for long.

Aberzombie wrote:
Yeah, it might make an interesting sub plot to have Rogue steal some of her power. Personally, I want to see Deathbird/Captain Marvel throwdown.

Could be fun, but given how much more powerful the movie Captain Marvel is than Ms Marvel was when Deathbird was one of her villains, Deathbird would need a big power boost.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Every version of D and D I have played, I have enjoyed, save for 4th edition.

I enjoyed the one campaign of 4E we played, but we all agreed that while we managed to have fun with it, it wasn't as much to our tastes as some other systems. Can't actually remember what we went to after that. Might have been a Cthulhu campaign? Eventually picked up PF some years later.

A good group and GM can make nearly any system work, but that doesn't mean some aren't better suited for their tastes than others.

Thomas Seitz wrote:

No idea about cameos, but if they do bring her in to X-men, I'd REALLY like it if they avoided using Rogue for like...5 years.

Also still hope for Annihiliation Wave adaptation.

Could be fun to have a brief nod with Rogue stealing her powers for a bit, just to scare folks who remember the comic arc, but they won't do the full depower thing.

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Batman Beyond using a variant of False Face was pretty nice.

But really for me, War of the Realms was about the return of Mjolnir and being forged not just out of a star (or in this case, our Sun) but also re-using the God Storm to help. As for Thor becoming King I'm more interested to see what Thor can do against Knull since it's pretty clear he and Carnage will be on a collusion course.

I think in terms of Franklin's power set...they'll tone it down...but when necessary, they might try to raise it back up.

I actually like the current story, even if it does seem silly. I mean Galactus EATS Dormammu!

Franklin's power level and abilities have varied widely for decades, essentially to serve the whims of the story. I'm sure this current approach won't last either.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming King Thor series, but that's future King Thor, not our Thor becoming him. We'll see what happens with Thor. I do wonder if this might be Aaron's wrap up? In which case, they'll probably go off in some other direction.
In general, I'm not too fond of "Thor ruling Asgard" arcs. Too constraining.

Aberzombie wrote:

Brie Larson Is Reportedly Signed To Star In This Many Marvel Movies

Long story short (for those who don't want to bother clicking the link): Rumor is FIVE.

Personally, I think they could do some interesting things with this. Of course they'll do another stand alone movie (probably two). For the other three they could do Avengers.

OR, perhaps they could use her in X-Men? And they could use the opportunity to expand the MCU alien cultures and bring in the Shi'ar. I'd likely pay good money to see that.

She could show up in the next Guardians as well. Sounds like cameos don't count, but any significant appearance would.

We'll see what they set up when they do the FF story. Would be the obvious place to introduce the Negative Zone and Annihilus.
Then build that up to a major event.

The problem I see with using him as the next metaplot is that Annihilus isn't really the long term plotter Thanos is. We had ~10 years of movies building up to Thanos getting the stones and finally being beaten. It's not clear how that would work with an Annihilation Wave arc. How to connect the individual movies building up to it.

I think they'll definitely want to build up another meta-plot and use that to drive big team up movies. It's a staple of the genre and it's worked well for them.
But they might well back off for a bit and use solo movies to set the stage for awhile. Or team movies like Guardians/FF/X-Men that are self-contained teams, not teams made up of heroes from their own movies.

OTOH, it might be interesting to see the more second-string Avengers on their own handling not quite so grand threats, without pulling in Marvel or Strange or the Panther.

I don't know if it would be too anti-climatic to have an Avengers movie be less than a mega-spectacle at this point.

It's one kind of fun thing about classic comic book story-telling: There's always a next issue. You've got to have a story the next month after the epic climax of the year long story arc. Often that got used as a way to ground the characters again.

I like pretty much everything I've read of Hickman's stuff. I like the X-Men.

I'll be reading them. Could disappoint of course, but I don't see any reason to expect it.

Did they even have an official leader? Even when Steve and Tony weren't feuding.

I'm not really sure who would be good. Sam or Rhodes would be competent, but I'm not sure anyone left has the stature to pull it off dramatically.

It's mostly second stringers (in the movieverse) and headliners who've got other things to do (T'Challa, Danvers and Strange). Spidey's too young and not confident enough. Ant-Man's had movies, but isn't leadership material.

Now I am wondering where they're going to go with this.

15-20 years ago they were fighting suits for racial discrimination - pretty blatant claims too. And just firing LGBT employees - which was (and is) perfectly legal in most states.

No idea where Freehold got the idea they've got a good reputation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

Good points but it overlooks the fact that the pie has grown considerably with the introduction of 5e. The other (post-AD&D) D&D editions/d20 clones didn't really do that.

So I guess I need to restate my point, altered for clarity given by the most recent posts:
"Presently a minority of TTRPG players like the ultra crunchy. It seems likely that it was always this way and always will be."

I've read a metric #### ton of grognard reminiscences. Not a scientific sample I know but one lesson I got from that was that homebrew rules to make things simpler/slicker/quicker is/was the norm, with those groups going in the crunchy/er direction few and far between.

Not my recollection, but the world was a different more isolated place back then. There were house rules aplenty but they were mostly to cover unclear or missing rules. Other house rules went in both directions.

But even putting AD&D aside, I think it's really hard to say that in 2007 for example near the height of 3.5's popularity that the majority of TTRPG players preferred a less crunchy game. Or that Pathfinder's success was despite its crunch. There were less crunchy games around then. There have been since the early days. They've never been as popular as whatever the current version of D&D is.

It's possible that 5e is just a good game and the level of crunch isn't that relevant. Or that these things go in cycles and that level of crunch is on the upswing.

CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So does that suggest that the oceans have already absorbed more heat than we thought, since they mix more than we thought they did? We measure mostly the surface temperatures, but the deep cold water has warmed more than we thought it had?

Yes... and no.

We estimate total ocean heat content in multiple ways and this finding is within the margin of error of those existing estimates.

So, our modeled estimates of heat uptake haven't been taking this effect in to account and thus indeed have been underestimating ocean heating.

Estimates based on ocean temperature measurements have been finding greater deep ocean warming than expected for a while now, and thus likely already include some portion of the warming from this mechanism.

Estimates based on sea level rise subtract out the contribution from melting ice to find how much of the rise is due to thermal expansion... and thus how much the oceans have warmed. Thus, again while they wouldn't have included this (or any other) mechanism of heat distribution they WOULD include the impact.

For several years there was a discrepancy between the heat we knew must be accumulating in the climate system (based on measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation... incoming - outgoing = amount staying in the system) and how much heat we could actually FIND. In recent years more and more of that "missing heat" has been located in the deep oceans as we began being able to measure that area. Thus, we had already determined that the heat was down there... what this new study has done is provided an explanation for how some (possibly most?) of that heat is getting there.

That will eventually allow us to model the new mechanism and thus predict future warming and other impacts with smaller uncertainty ranges. It also confirms what direct ocean temperature measurements and sea level rise estimates had already been telling us. As the three methods come in to closer agreement we gain more confidence that any remaining unknowns...

That makes sense.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
It's quite likely that this new factor raises the floor for the average global temperature due to anthropic activities.

Seriously? You still don't get it?

You said yourself that heat flows from warmer to colder. Correct. So which is colder... air temperature at the Earth's surface or water temperature at the bottom of the ocean?

Yes, there is a buffer of ocean water between those two things which prevents immediate transfer, but the whole point here is that greater mixing of that ocean water has been found... thereby reducing the efficiency of that buffer and allowing more surface heat to be transferred to cold deep ocean waters.

This is basic 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Fun fact: If ocean waters mixed rapidly enough to evenly distribute heat throughout them we wouldn't even have noticed global warming yet. The atmospheric temperature increase would be too small to detect. It is only because surface and deep ocean waters mix slowly that the atmosphere has been forced to warm so significantly.

Indeed, one of the early arguments against global warming was that the oceans would absorb all the heat... because they didn't account for slow mixing and surface water temperature saturation.

So does that suggest that the oceans have already absorbed more heat than we thought, since they mix more than we thought they did? We measure mostly the surface temperatures, but the deep cold water has warmed more than we thought it had?

Quark Blast wrote:
It is a minority of TTRPG players that like the ultra crunchy. Always has been/will be.

This seems to have become conventional wisdom since 5E came out, but I don't think it bears any real examination.

3.x (and d20 in general) dominated for well over a decade, if you include Pathfinder. 4E wasn't a huge success, but it still split the market with PF. Even AD&D wasn't exactly non-crunchy, though it lacked the chargen complexity until near the end of 2E.

There are plenty of much simpler rules lite games out there that have never touched the popularity of the crunchy versions of D&D - next to some 5E would be ultra crunchy.

If anything the simplest rule is that a minority of TTRPG players will play anything other than the current version of D&D - the only exceptions are when D&D itself is struggling - near the end of AD&D2E and later in 4E.

Not so much the amount of xp per level, but the combat to non-combat time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not really a rules thing, but I've been thinking about the pacing in this campaign.

We've seen 10 hour long episodes, which is roughly 2-3 normal sessions, I'd guess?
From what I remember, there've been the following fights:
Undead on the ship
Thugs in the inn
The sewers:
rat swarms
Otyugh (handled with diplomacy)
Razmir cultists

The first two were encounters on their own, with plenty of time to rest before and after. The sewer sequence seems about on the scale of a PFS scenario - 4 encounters with no real chance to rest up.

That seems really sparse to me by the standards of most modules or scenarios. But it does match my normal experience playing homebrew adventures - less of the meatgrinder, more mystery and interaction and exploration between fight sequences.

Aberzombie wrote:

Bit more of a rant along the same topic.

A large part of this modern-day continue with the same characters for ever I lay the blame for at the feet of one person.

Dan Didio.

He came over from television, back when the MO for even the most popular TV shows seemed to be "keep it going until the viewers hate it". No matter what kind of idiotic nonsense they had to come up with.

Maybe I'm off base, but it gives me a warm feeling to blame that douchenugget.

I do feel somewhat the same way about Didio. He seems to be linked to a lot of directions I wasn't fond of.

Aberzombie wrote:

Sam Wilson’s Captain America Almost Made A Cameo In ‘Spider-Man: Far From Home’

This would have been cool. Even though I don't collect Captain America any more (and hadn't since sometime before the Winter Soldier was introduced), I always liked the idea of Sam pciking up the shield. In fact, I wish they'd kept it that way, instead of bringing Steve Rogers back.

That gets into one of what I consider to be the biggest flaw in superhero comics - the inability to let characters grow old/retire/die and let someone else take up the name. The powers that be seem hell bent on sticking to this nonsense, despite some evidence to the contrary.

Example one is The Flash. They killed of Barry Allen in Crisis. Wally took over and was a very successful Flash for nearly 20 straight years. True, when they tried to do it again, with Bart replacing Wally) it failed. However, I think that was a combination of piss poor writing and because they had kind of tried to make Bart a little unlikable. That was a shame, because I loved the idea of the continued succession.

Example two is Kyle Rayner. They killed off Hal. The other two human Green Lanterns were...whatever. So they give the ring to Kyle and he has a pretty decent 10 year run. Not bad for a character that pretty much came out of nowhere.

Example three is Batman himself. They replaced him once with Azrael. I didn't collect Batman at the time, so I don't know how successfull that was. Later, however, they did it right and replaced Bruce with Dick. Again, I didn't collect Batman at the time, but I've heard that was a pretty decent run.

Example 4 is Captain America. Rogers was turned old, and Sam took up the torch for what I understand to be a pretty decent and welcomed run.

I guess my point is, why keep having to revise these characters histories over and over. Let some successor come along. Kill them off (gracefully or not). Allow some retirement. Is it too much to ask for a little more sensible storytelling?!?

Okay. Rant over.

It's an old argument, but the upshot is that old popular characters will always come back. The medium is built on it and in general it's a good thing, whatever you or I think of any particular character.

Think about the long history behind some of these characters and back to their first replacements or deaths. Many of them you and I never should have seen. Batman dates to the 40s. He should have retired and been replaced before I was born. Cap's introduction to the modern Marvel Universe was itself bringing him back from the dead.
Even ignoring the Golden Age, the majority of the big Silver Age characters should be cycled out by now and I like some of those old guys. Many of them remain popular big sellers. (Not to mention starring in movies.)

Beyond that, I think there needs to be a distinction between two different kinds of replacement, though it's not always clear up front. Some are intended to be permanent and some are just story arcs. The Flash and Green Lantern were permanent, but the Batman and Cap arcs you mention were story arcs from the start. Those replacements were never intended to last. They had a start and an end planned from the beginning. You could add others, like Jane Foster Thor and the Superior Spiderman in here. They tend to use the replacement to highlight things about the real character.
Basically, Steve Rogers is Captain America. Bruce Wayne is Batman. The appeal of the character isn't just the name and the costume. The point of the replacements is to highlight that while having fun showing how the other character handles the role differently.

Less so with less iconic characters and the long term replacements. Those in many cases it might have been better to leave in place.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
There's also that detail regarding Asmodeus being one of the 2 primeval deities in the Great Beyond (the other one having had a fatal case of the stabbings),

This is Asmodeus's story. It's presented in purely in-character text as the story he tells.

It is a lie. Asmodeus was an angel who rebelled and led others in rebellion and went off to conquer and rule Hell. This is stated several places in the out-of-character sections Archdevil deity articles, and is thus canonically supported.

In-universe you can easily believe either, but the latter is correct.

What does "angel who rebelled" even mean in the context of Golarion and a non monotheistic universe?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also not generally basic math skills that drive me to use chargen software.

Aberzombie wrote:

Not sure about the other dude, but when I say "hack" I mean he comes off as crazy, over-the-top, and seems to occasionally sneer at the idea of traditional comic book super heroes simply because it makes him look cooler and edgier.

And, yes, there are a lot of hacks out there in the industry. That's true for pretty much any industry, however.

Oh he's definitely crazy and over the top and he's got more so over the years. :)

"Hack" is usually used as a pejorative for writers who do low-quality rushed work to order. That just doesn't seem to fit at all.

If Alan Moore is a hack, what the hell is the rest of the comics industry?

I mean, I can understand if you don't like him, but "hack" doesn't even make sense. At least if the 90% of comic writers churning out bog-standard plots at editorial direction aren't "hacks".

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Or you could just grab a piece of paper, a pencil and your math skills and manage your character with the truly classic program. It’s free and doesn’t need online access, though it can suffer from bouts of drunken system crashes and the need for the occasional restroom break. Otherwise, it has been pretty damn efficient for 45 years.

Of course the system it was most used with for at least the first 20 or so of those years had a lot less moving parts for character design. Much simpler to do by hand.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
It seems to me that in large part, people from a predominately monotheistic society (ours, for example) have trouble role-playing people from a predominately polytheistic society. Henotheism may be as far as they can go.

I'm not sure how much it's players having trouble with it and how much that's the way the game has been structured since the AD&D days - religion focused around clerics (and later other divine casters) tied to single gods.

That's how the mechanics were set up and thus how most of the world building has been done.

CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, aliens infiltrating as important politicians and famous people is common enough trope that I don't think you have to link it to the offensive versions. Like, its commonly used enough that I think lot of non americans don't even know its origins.

Especially since the origins go back well before Icke's conspiracy theory. And it's long been used in fiction without more than the loosest reference to the anti-semitic versions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I'm kind of in a weird spot with Cracker Barrel.

Every time I've been at one, I've been on the road with gamer-buddies and we weren't dressed 'exceptionally well' so we got some stares and some unwanted attention of the negative sort.

That being said, the food was good, the service was timely, and we didn't have to hold an interpretative dance session to get our check from the server.

On the other side, yet again though, I heard disparaging remarks (not aimed at our crew) discussing how certain folks of certain races shouldn't be entering the store and whatnot.

So I'm glad that at least some level has recognized this is an issue, and hope that the experiences I had were just outliers.

weird. Cracker barrel is notorious for their "you can't be a bigot here" policy.

After settling a bunch of lawsuits for racial discrimination in the mid-2000s maybe. And somewhere around the same time officially revoking their policy against employing LGBT people.

I think they've gotten better, but they're still apparently not great. Not surprising. Corporate culture is hard to change.

Honestly, I've never heard anything like "you can't be a bigot here" in regard to Cracker Barrel.

I suppose. How does this change our understanding of the current state?

Were we basing estimates of how much heat the oceans have absorbed only on surface measurements and thus underestimating the amount of warming the oceans have already undergone - because the supposed colder layers aren't actually as cold as we thought they were? Or were we measuring all of this already and this is just affecting projections going forward?

In the short run, nothing should change I think. We've known the surface temperatures, which are what controls heat absorption. This would be changing our estimates of what surface temperatures will be in the future.

And of course the article says nothing about how much this new discovery changes the models.

AnCap Dawg wrote:
graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Novaing in every fight is a meta-game problem.
LOL Doesn't novaing every round make you like the average NPC/monster in the average adventure? ;)
Yep. And most of them wind up dead, too.

But for very different reasons than PC groups doing so.

They nova and still die because they're outmatched. PCs nova in easy fights then die because they run out of resources.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, while named attacks are definitely a common anime trope, it's not like they're unheard of in western fantasy or history either: "I see you are using Bonetti's defense against me."
Formalized fighting styles tend to name techniques for reference. Makes it easier to know what you're talking about.

Mainstream western fiction like the Wheel of Time use fancy 'Western Blade Slays The Sun' style names as well. I doubt Jordan was heavily influenced by anime.

graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Novaing in every fight is a meta-game problem.
LOL Doesn't novaing every round make you like the average NPC/monster in the average adventure? ;)
It does. But it makes more sense for them most of the time.
Oh I understand. I just find it interesting that the two are expected to use different tactics but they are thought of as equally 'tough'. In CR terms, they are the same.

But that's kind of the point: PCs can hold back to face more fights because they are tougher. An Average encounter is supposed to be 4 PCs facing 1 enemy of the same CR. Even an Epic one is only 3 enemies at the same CR.

And on the Epic encounters you generally are doing your best to nova.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Novaing in every fight is a meta-game problem.
LOL Doesn't novaing every round make you like the average NPC/monster in the average adventure? ;)

It does. But it makes more sense for them most of the time.

PCs are generally headed into enemy territory with the expectation of having multiple groups of enemies before they get where they're going. The NPCs/monsters are defending their homes against an attack. That rarely happens multiple times a day. No reason not to nova.

Slightly different if they're out as a raiding party or some such. Then they should be holding back - at least until the PCs show up. :)
Since the PCs usually massively outpower their opposition, again holding back quickly becomes fatal. Remember, even an Epic challenge is weaker than a PC party - ramp up a step or two beyond that and the PCs should be desperately novaing, probably just to get away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The first solution is to talk to the players. Most of the in game solutions have too good a chance of backfiring.

While this is a good general policy, I actually don't think it is necessarily the best solution here, because it doesn't sound like the players are doing anything wrong to correct. These in game solutions are viable tools to use, and it might be be good to explain potential consequences to your players.

Novaing in every fight is a meta-game problem. It breaks the game expectations - makes everything too easy when it works and when you can't safely get away the time you're screwed.

It's not even necessarily that they're doing anything "wrong", but you just want to make sure expectations are on the same page.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The first solution is to talk to the players. Most of the in game solutions have too good a chance of backfiring.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:
Yes I’m a big fan of a 10 minute “short rest” where characters can role play and get some powers and hit points back. 10 minutes is better then 5e’s hour because it’s short enough for heroes to do in most situations without seeming lazy. I really like the idea of a cleric praying and tending to the dead after a battle.

I honestly find situations where 10 minutes is reasonable, but an hour isn't pretty rare. Either the circumstances mean you need to press on or they don't.

In any reasonably sized "dungeon" complex, you should be worrying who heard that first fight and not wanting to give them time to get ready for you. If that's not an issue, take your time.

Quandary wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Being a better warrior (BAB/Armor proficiences/HP or the PF2 equivalents) already throws it into a different style, then you add in the Curses and Mysteries, which have a larger effect then sorcerer blood lines do, they're very different classes.

Despite both being spontaneous divine casters. Much like the bard is a different spontaneous occult caster than the sorcerer. You could go reductionist and just make 2 caster classes: spontaneous and prepared, each with options to pick a spell list, but the game chassis encourages breaking things out into multiple classes.

I don't necessarily expect much "2E equivalent to BAB" between Sorceror and Oracle, everybody gets +Level and I don't see major proficiency boosts being necessarily hard-wired into Oracle, aside from specific Mysteries. I don't really expect Mysteries to have more effect than Bloodlines, with evevrbody using Class Feats for that now. I would agree Curse has more potential for differentiating them, but not so much because of it's 1E heritage... I actually expect Curse to be MORE developed in 2E than 1E (possibly to different degrees, depending on each Oracle's Feat choices), which I alluded to by tying Curse to Focus and Burn.

My previous post went into how the Mystery and Bloodline themes aren't really very close to each other at all. Although there might be Bloodlines not yet existent/revealed which might threaten overlap more, that would just call for stricter ensurance of distinction. How Elemental Bloodlines, including Positive/Negative Elemental, work might be most challenging case. Although even then, the Oracle would be Divine while Sorceror would be either Arcane or Primal(?) so I'm not too worried about differentiation.

I definitely agree with your broader point that reducing things to crude elements e.g. Spontaneous and Divine misses way to much to actually be of relevance.

I was thinking they'd get beyond Trained in their weapons and armor, which is how PF2 represents some classes being better at fighting, but I'd forgotten Clerics didn't actually get that, so they probably won't.

Aberzombie wrote:
One of the dudes at the comic book store told me about some software you could buy that helps you keep track of what your collection and what it could be worth. I'll do some more investigating, but it might be a nice thing to have.

I've seen various packages that do that, though I haven't looked in long time. They all seemed to need prodigious amounts of data entry, if you have a decent sized collection. Each issue generally needed to be entered individually, so you could track condition and maybe things like variant covers and the like.

Not to mention subscriptions if you want to keep up with current values.

I hacked together my own program, which isn't useful for values, but at least lets me track what I've got. It's still a ton of data entry, but I least I can do things like enter "Thor, 205-327", rather than open up 122 separate forms and click a few times on each.

1 to 50 of 28,294 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>