1000!
YES, I WIN THE THREAD
But not the last word.
:P
Reported for double-posting ;)1000!
YES, I WIN THE THREAD
bruh
edit: suppose i'll live on in your quotation| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this, this is what i've waited for.
the expression is perfect. :3
Your response shows you are still thinking the distance you can jump is capped by your max speed. (Which while generally is true, it is not because that is what the rules say, but because few people could make a DC 60+ jump check).
Yes, to which I respond again:
Ahh gotcha. Yup. definitely hangtime if you do that
holy crap ... over 1000 posts about jumping over a pit?!
the world has gone insane. there is no other explanation.
** spoiler omitted **
more like 700 and then 300 on people secretly trying to post random stuff to get to 1000 posts.
more like 700 and then 300 on people secretly trying to post random stuff to get to 1000 posts.holy crap ... over 1000 posts about jumping over a pit?!
the world has gone insane. there is no other explanation.
** spoiler omitted **
And that is somehow more sane?
And many of those "logical fallacies" are perfectly OK outside a formal debate setting.I'm not sure why you're crusading against this particular notion, but no these informal fallacies are NOT okay. The reason why is that their stated arguments do not support their stated conclusions.
An ad hominem is NOT okay because it is saying "this argument is wrong because this person said it". If I said "The sky is not blue because DrDeth said it was blue, and he is always wrong", that would be an ad hominem fallacy, and my statement would be wrong. (Unless of course DrDeth was in fact always wrong, but I feel confident in saying that this is NOT a universal truth. ;)
An argument from authority is NOT okay because it is saying "this authority said it, so it is true". Jason Bulmahn might say "caster/martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", but that doesn't make what he said true. (He might have evidence and reasoning to back up that statement, but THAT is what makes it true, not that he said it.) At the same time, Mark Seifter saying "this is how Acrobatics DCs are supposed to work" is an authority speaking on a subject, but it's not an argument from authority because he is backing it up with the actual people that wrote how it is supposed to work.
And now that I've wasted all of our time refuting your post, we can go back to arguing minutia.
wiki:"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]....When an ad hominem argument is made against a statement, it is important to draw a distinction whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[8]
Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[11] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
But what is it when *I* quote Mark Seifter saying "this is how Acrobatics DCs are supposed to work" ? That is a argument from authority and a correct use of it.
But again, Note what wiki sez about the difference:
"An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises may fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion.[1] The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic."
And that is somehow more sane?more like 700 and then 300 on people secretly trying to post random stuff to get to 1000 posts.holy crap ... over 1000 posts about jumping over a pit?!
the world has gone insane. there is no other explanation.
** spoiler omitted **
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what is it when *I* quote Mark Seifter saying "this is how Acrobatics DCs are supposed to work" ? That is a argument from authority and a correct use of it.That's not a fallacy then.
It's still a argument from authority. So, not all arguments from authority are wrong. Generally, just saying "your argument is invalid as it's a fallacy' is bad arguing. Show why it's a bad argument. If it's bad, then no need to appeal to a "fallacy". This is why most of the posts which say "STORMWIND FALLACY!" are incorrect- in that not only is it not a "fallacy' but generally it's being mis-applied.
For example- using a post by James Jacobs as your cite. Well, he's said over and over he's not 'the rules guy" so if it's about hard RAW, then it's not as good as if it's about the world of Golarion in general, and if it about how he personally plays, then it's solid. So, if I cite JJ about the rules, your response could be "well, he has said he's not the rules guy, so it's not official", and that would be a great counter argument*. But saying "Ha ha, I caught you in a LOGICAL FALLACY, your argument is thus invalid" is both wrong and being a jerk.
* altho I could then argue back it at least shows either RAI or how he plays it, which does give some weight, even if not "official".
|
It's still a argument from authority. So, not all arguments from authority are wrong. Generally, just saying "your argument is invalid as it's a fallacy' is bad arguing. Show why it's a bad argument. If it's bad, then no need to appeal to a "fallacy". This is why most of the posts which say "STORMWIND FALLACY!" are incorrect- in that not only is it not a "fallacy' but generally it's being mis-applied.But what is it when *I* quote Mark Seifter saying "this is how Acrobatics DCs are supposed to work" ? That is a argument from authority and a correct use of it.That's not a fallacy then.
Okay, I got ya. You're not crusading against fallacies, but against fallacious use of fallacies. :)
An argument from authority is a fallacy ONLY when it's not an authority in the relevant field.
Trying to win a debate on physics or relativity by quoting Einstein is NOT a fallacy; trying to win a debate on biology or evolution by quoting Einstein is a fallacy (specifically the Argument From Authority) fallacy.
please continue this enlightening debate on the relative width of a 10' pit.That's probably the one thing nobody was debating.
Actually did not someone argue that the pit was not necessarily filling the entire width? I am not willing to re-read the whole post to check that, however it was about the time people were arguing using SKR as a reference.
An argument from authority is a fallacy ONLY when it's not an authority in the relevant field.
Trying to win a debate on physics or relativity by quoting Einstein is NOT a fallacy; trying to win a debate on biology or evolution by quoting Einstein is a fallacy (specifically the Argument From Authority) fallacy.
ther's also the experts are divided on the matter clause, like quoting jared diamond to support the overkill hypothesis for what iced the mammoths debate. Not nearly as bad, but the fact is that you can often pick your position and then use that to pick your expert.
YesAnd that is somehow more sane?more like 700 and then 300 on people secretly trying to post random stuff to get to 1000 posts.holy crap ... over 1000 posts about jumping over a pit?!
the world has gone insane. there is no other explanation.
** spoiler omitted **
you and your aliases.
ther's also the experts are divided on the matter clause, like quoting jared diamond to support the overkill hypothesis for what iced the mammoths debate. Not nearly as bad, but the fact is that you can often pick your position and then use that to pick your expert.An argument from authority is a fallacy ONLY when it's not an authority in the relevant field.
Trying to win a debate on physics or relativity by quoting Einstein is NOT a fallacy; trying to win a debate on biology or evolution by quoting Einstein is a fallacy (specifically the Argument From Authority) fallacy.
Sure. In any interesting field there are debates with experts on each side, espousing different beliefs, theories, or even facts. But it's not a fallacy to quote them as experts in their field when you're debating within that field. It can be naive to assume that finding one expert and believing in his version dogmatically is all you need to understand a complex issue, but it's not a fallacy.
|
Actually did not someone argue that the pit was not necessarily filling the entire width?please continue this enlightening debate on the relative width of a 10' pit.That's probably the one thing nobody was debating.
Some people were trying to play shenaniganry with the grid regarding where a character was capable of starting and ending their jump, but the actual width of the pit was never in question.
Movement on the diagonals does pose a problem with distance traveled, but that's not a fault of the Acrobatics skill, that's an issue with movement being quantified in squares.
Okay, I got ya. You're not crusading against fallacies, but against fallacious use of fallacies. :)It's still a argument from authority. So, not all arguments from authority are wrong. Generally, just saying "your argument is invalid as it's a fallacy' is bad arguing. Show why it's a bad argument. If it's bad, then no need to appeal to a "fallacy". This is why most of the posts which say "STORMWIND FALLACY!" are incorrect- in that not only is it not a "fallacy' but generally it's being mis-applied.But what is it when *I* quote Mark Seifter saying "this is how Acrobatics DCs are supposed to work" ? That is a argument from authority and a correct use of it.That's not a fallacy then.
More or less.
An argument from authority is a fallacy ONLY when it's not an authority in the relevant field.
Trying to win a debate on physics or relativity by quoting Einstein is NOT a fallacy; trying to win a debate on biology or evolution by quoting Einstein is a fallacy (specifically the Argument From Authority) fallacy.
No, it's not a fallacy, unless you're in a High School debating class. But it is a very weak argument.
Actually did not someone argue that the pit was not necessarily filling the entire width?please continue this enlightening debate on the relative width of a 10' pit.That's probably the one thing nobody was debating.Some people were trying to play shenaniganry with the grid regarding where a character was capable of starting and ending their jump, but the actual width of the pit was never in question.
Movement on the diagonals does pose a problem with distance traveled, but that's not a fault of the Acrobatics skill, that's an issue with movement being quantified in squares.
some people did say the DC was unquantifiable because know one had a tape measure to measure the pit... didn't get much traction or responses though.
yes
15, movement is calculated in 5ft movements and anything less than 5 is rounded down. That's why a movespeed of 34 is the same as 30, you can't make it to the next square, even though your movement would be enough to get you in the next square.
You are assuming the jump is made during a combat, and thus using a battlegrid. Characters can jump during exploration too, and while we have to make certain concesions to the game rules when in combat and using a map, you don't have to do that the rest of the time. For example, there are pits that are 8' wide, or 12' wide, and characters can put themselves in the middle of a 10' wide corridor, there's not a invisible force that push them to be either in the left 5' or the right 5' of a corridor, except in combat.
EDIT: duh. Just realized this thread has 1000', and my post is probably irrelevant since page 2 or so.
there's not a invisible force that push them to be either in the left 5' or the right 5' of a corridor, except in combat.
if you're large you're in the center :3
EDIT: duh. Just realized this thread has 1000', and my post is probably irrelevant since page 2 or so.
it's been FAQed, you got ninja'd by like 2-3 days
10
Your maximum movement for the round is something you decide, to some degree:
Running, with the Run feat=150 feet for a normal/medium character.
Gear and class can add to that.
You ain't rolling that high, my friend, no way.
Oh?
Cheetah's SprintMy base move is 30'. The spell gives me a sprint of 150'. [Double move = 10*base.] This is 120' of enhancement. At +4/10', that is +48. I have a take 1 of 30, and as a 10th level ninja, the DCs are halved. So on a take 1, with the swift spell, I jump 156'. If I roll a 20, I go 194'. As the spell gives a full-round move of 300, I have not exceeded that limit. Without the spell, I can get 76'-114'.
If I had taken the two ninja talents, I could double that, since it halves the DCs again.
/cevah
My guess is the square root of 100! ;)
So, -10?
Only if I get to multiply it by the square root of 1. ;)
I'm assuming you mean sqrt(100), not sqrt(100!)
Well that WOULD be normal sentence structure punctuation. :P
their brains taste so much better when their minds have snapp... oh, sorry didn't see you there. Please, please continue this enlightening debate on the relative width of a 10' pit.
Relative?
All things are relativeAll relatives are things
My relatives took all my things
Your maximum movement for the round is something you decide, to some degree:
Running, with the Run feat=150 feet for a normal/medium character.
Gear and class can add to that.
You ain't rolling that high, my friend, no way.
Oh?
Cheetah's Sprint
My base move is 30'. The spell gives me a sprint of 150'. [Double move = 10*base.] This is 120' of enhancement. At +4/10', that is +48. I have a take 1 of 30, and as a 10th level ninja, the DCs are halved. So on a take 1, with the swift spell, I jump 156'. If I roll a 20, I go 194'. As the spell gives a full-round move of 300, I have not exceeded that limit. Without the spell, I can get 76'-114'.If I had taken the two ninja talents, I could double that, since it halves the DCs again.
/cevah
Huh.
I guess I stand corrected. Still, the point I was mainly trying to make was that jumping distance is based on your speed, which can be variable, you helped me prove that point, and I thank you for that.
Damn ninjas are creepy. We had a running joke in our last 3.5 game that they got to add their level to every roll, cause sometimes it seems like they do. ;)
Your post makes me wonder: Just how far could one jump, without using Mythic rules?
Also, how does the ninja cast that personal range spell on himself?
For posterity, the Paizo Character Folio quick reference states it is a DC 10 to jump a 10 foot pit (and a DC 5 for a 5 foot pit).
Is that a RAW source? It is written by the same author as the CRB.
I'm gonna go with that. Plus, it's easy to remember DC=distance. Seems logical.
Anything else, and you get threads over a thousand posts long arguing about a hole in the ground. ;)
|
|
For posterity, the Paizo Character Folio quick reference states it is a DC 10 to jump a 10 foot pit (and a DC 5 for a 5 foot pit).
Is that a RAW source? It is written by the same author as the CRB.
I'm gonna go with that. Plus, it's easy to remember DC=distance. Seems logical.
Anything else, and you get threads over a thousand posts long arguing about a hole in the ground. ;)
In case you missed it in the 1000+ posts and the FAQ that came out on Friday, it's already been officially answered on post 700 or so (plus the FAQ) that the DC is 10 for a 10' wide pit. The last few hundred posts have been mostly nonsense and not related to the question at all...
My guess is the square root of 100! ;)So, -10? Even a fighter in full plate might manage that.
(I'm assuming you mean sqrt(100), not sqrt(100!); that's a very large number. Even sqrt(100)!, which is 3628800, is a DC I don't see many characters making ...)
sqrt(100!) is roughly 9.66x10^78, and I'm sure someone can make a character that can beat it.
Good luck, though.
So, -10?Only if I get to multiply it by the square root of 1. ;)
I'm pretty sure i can let you do that.
Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.
anyone want to do matrix math to calculate physics?
|
That's probably the one thing nobody was debating.
By extension of the elements of the debate, folks really have been. In order to clear a 10' gap, one must only jump 10'1" (or even slightly less). Think of the movies where folks leap and land right on the edge of the precipice they landed on. They made their DC 10 check, barely. Talk of needing to get a DC 15 in order to clear the same space, or DC 11, is, in essence, debating the relative width of the opening.
And Manwolf, I am sorry your relatives took all your things. But remember, you are their relative as well. Go take their things.
|
|
the Paizo Character Folio quick reference states it is a DC 10 to jump a 10 foot pit (and a DC 5 for a 5 foot pit).I'm gonna go with that. Plus, it's easy to remember DC=distance. Seems logical.
I agree that "DC = Distance" seemed logical, and that's what several of us were arguing in favor of, but the FAQ came out as "DC = Obstacle" instead.
|
|
I agree that "DC = Distance" seemed logical, and that's what several of us were arguing in favor of, but the FAQ came out as "DC = Obstacle" instead.the Paizo Character Folio quick reference states it is a DC 10 to jump a 10 foot pit (and a DC 5 for a 5 foot pit).I'm gonna go with that. Plus, it's easy to remember DC=distance. Seems logical.
You're only interpreting it that way because you disagree with what distance originally meant. To everyone else (as in everyone that thought DC was 10) "distance = obstacle" was what was already understood.