So you are making an argument with knowingly incomplete information but you want to be taken seriously? I'll pass.When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).
I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.
Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.
If you want to disprove what I'm saying by using that kind of data, feel free to bring it up. What your asking for doesn't exist, so I don't see the point in bringing that up. It doesn't seem very useful.
There is no data on median or mean jumping distance for humans, dogs, horses or kangaroos. If you can dig it up from a legitimate source (and not just someone's best guess of what they've seen personally), feel free to link it. If you'd like me to provide sources on the data I've shown so far, I can, but it's all pretty easy to find with simple searches.
You're focusing on the wrong part of my point. (heck, your even assigning points to me that I'm not making)
Beyond a certain point, being a larger animal does not aid in jumping ability.
This is part of the real world. As animal size grows, the ratio of body lengths covered in a jump diminish. Eventually that ratio becomes less than 1. Extremely small animals have jump/body ratios in the several hundreds, while most creatures around human size are in the low double digits at best. Once you go significantly above human-sized, that ratio gets to the mid to low single digits. Animals that would qualify as huge in game terms tend to have a ratio of less than 1.
Being aquatic seems to put the ratio higher, but again, you'll find that the largest aquatic animals can only breach (40% or more out of the water) and can't actually jump out of the water (which would be a ratio of less than 1).
You're focusing on the wrong part of my point.
No one disputes that size vs. jump distance doesn't model well in-game.
People do dispute that people can really jump as far as kangaroos, a claim you did make and continue to refuse to retract. So, the part people are focusing on is the part that was counterfactual, not the obvious part that they agree with.
If I say, "I am not a millionaire, and 10 x 100 = 1,000,000" -- and someone replies, "Dude, no, 10 x 100 = 1,000, not 1,000,000," then, yes, I suppose I can reply, "You're focusing on the wrong part of my point!" A better reply, however, would be, "Hmmm -- looks like I lost some decimal places. My math was wrong. However, I'm still not a millionaire, no matter how you do the math."
Or, if you meant to say, "According to the game rules, it seems a human and a kangaroo can both jump 8 meters," that's something we could look at and maybe propose more logical rules to fix. But that's not what you said.
You're focusing on the wrong part of my point.No one disputes that size vs. jump distance doesn't model well in-game.
People do dispute that people can really jump as far as kangaroos, a claim you did make and continue to refuse to retract. So, the part people are focusing on is the part that was counterfactual, not the obvious part that they agree with.
If I say, "I am not a millionaire, and 10 x 100 = 1,000,000" -- and someone replies, "Dude, no, 10 x 100 = 1,000, not 1,000,000," then, yes, I suppose I can reply, "You're focusing on the wrong part of my point!" A better reply, however, would be, "Hmmm -- looks like I lost some decimal places. My math was wrong. However, I'm still not a millionaire, no matter how you do the math."
Or, if you meant to say, "According to the game rules, it seems a human and a kangaroo can both jump 8 meters," that's something we could look at and maybe propose more logical rules to fix. But that's not what you said.
If you want to get nitpicky, I never actually said that people can jump as far as kangaroos.
Yup, I went back and read that before my last post too. It wasn't too hard to find since there's only one other page in the thread.
So are you standing by the assertion that kangaroos have similar horizontal jump distance to humans, or are you agreeing with Kirth that it was an erroneous statement? Just so we can get back to comparing the game world to the real world.
Are we measuring forwards or backwards jumps? Cause if we're measuring backwards jumps, even an overweight office worker will do better than a kangaroo.
You seem to keep avoiding the question. Do you stand by your statement?
I'm jumping over it.
Compromise, present me with some data you'd like me to compare, and I'll tell you my opinion of it. I'm uninterested in this line of questioning and being forced to choose between the two options you've given me. If you want to actually add something to this, say with facts or figures, I am certainly willing to weigh in on that.
You seem to keep avoiding the question. Do you stand by your statement?I'm jumping over it.
Compromise, present me with some data you'd like me to compare, and I'll tell you my opinion of it. I'm uninterested in this line of questioning and being forced to choose between the two options you've given me. If you want to actually add something to this, say with facts or figures, I am certainly willing to weigh in on that.
Actually, as the party who is asserting wildly inaccurate / misleading information as truth, it is incumbent upon you to present evidence that proves you are correct. We don't have to prove you wrong because your statement is false on its face.
World long jump record (which we should note are under conditions specifically designed to allow for good performance) is just under 9 meters.
Longest recorded jump of a kangaroo in the wild (ie, not optimal conditions, and also not an "athlete" or "trained" animal) was 13.5 meters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is fun.
Real life is a pointless, out of control, mess.
...All of them? Pathfinder does not make much of an attempt to be a realistic. Which is fine; if I wanted to do stuff in the real world I'd be outside getting exercise rather than holed up in a room with a bunch of nerds.
I'm not terribly happy with this topic.
Magic may affect the laws of nature there, causing all these differences. Also, I'm trying to get a gaming group together and posting on these topics to gain momentary respite from my life.
I'm going to hide this topic now and advise everyone else to do the same.
The OP might think about starting a new topic like "What detracts from the game for you cause it does not make sense in Pathfinder"
World long jump record (which we should note are under conditions specifically designed to allow for good performance) is just under 9 meters.
Longest recorded jump of a kangaroo in the wild (ie, not optimal conditions, and also not an "athlete" or "trained" animal) was 13.5 meters.
Do you have a source for that record?
Most websites, such as...
National Geographic
Wikipedia
Discovery Channel video
all cite a distance of 8-9 meters or 30 feet.
The only spot I can find which cites your distance is a grade school history/english teacher who answered a question on Answers.com.
Now, I accept that 8-9 meters probably isn't the record jump for a red kangaroo (remember, there are other kinds of kangaroos, tree kangaroos for example are no where near as good at jumping while on the ground). The record jump probably hasn't been recorded, seeing as there are probably hundreds of thousands of kangaroos that no one ever sees.
But, seeing as I can find 3 fairly reputable sources for the 8-9 meters (or 30 feet)... is it SOOOOOOO ridiculous for me to use that number when making my comparison? Is it so ridiculous, that we have to make implications about my intelligence or ability to debate this topic? Do we really need to pull out debate rules and go on and on for over a page, because I said that 8.95 meters is similar to 9.1 meters?
Seriously, it was an off-hand comment. It wasn't meant to be taken super seriously that we needed to f*!+ing go into full research mode for this. If I had known that you guys were going to freak the f@+% out on this, I wouldn't have made the comment.
I'm willing to drop this stupid, stupid aside if you guys are. But I will continue if you insist.
Those sources seem to refer to common leaping distance. Would you say...World long jump record (which we should note are under conditions specifically designed to allow for good performance) is just under 9 meters.
Longest recorded jump of a kangaroo in the wild (ie, not optimal conditions, and also not an "athlete" or "trained" animal) was 13.5 meters.
Do you have a source for that record?
Most websites, such as...
National Geographic
Wikipedia
Discovery Channel videoall cite a distance of 8-9 meters or 30 feet.
The only spot I can find which cites your distance is a grade school history/english teacher who answered a question on Answers.com.
Now, I accept that 8-9 meters probably isn't the record jump for a red kangaroo (remember, there are other kinds of kangaroos, tree kangaroos for example are no where near as good at jumping while on the ground). The record jump probably hasn't been recorded, seeing as there are probably hundreds of thousands of kangaroos that no one ever sees.
But, seeing as I can find 3 fairly reputable sources for the 8-9 meters (or 30 feet)... is it SOOOOOOO ridiculous for me to use that number when making my comparison? Is it so ridiculous, that we have to make implications about my intelligence or ability to debate this topic? Do we really need to pull out debate rules and go on and on for over a page, because I said that 8.95 meters is similar to 9.1 meters?
Seriously, it was an off-hand comment. It wasn't meant to be taken super seriously that we needed to f#%*ing go into full research mode for this. If I had known that you guys were going to freak the f#$% out on this, I wouldn't have made the comment.
I'm willing to drop this stupid, stupid aside if you guys are. But I will continue if you insist.
Please go ahead and quote the section of any of the sources I linked and highlight where it says "average".
Also, in general, would you consider it unreasonable if someone were making an offhand comment to rely on those sources? I'm not talking about a debate where this is the primary topic (cause it wasn't before someone decided to make this a bigger issue). I'm not talking about a true debate on the issue (cause it wasn't part of the thread before). I'm not talking about a scientific journal.
Just a random "hey, here's something interesting" kind of comment, in one of dozens, if not hundreds of informal threads that happen here on a daily/weekly basis.
Is it reasonable to see two sets of similar numbers on wikipedia (8.95 and 9.1) and say "hey, those look similar"?
Irontruth, is it really necessary to take what was originally a really fun thread and completely derail it? We've gone way past a reasonable debate into pointlessly pedantic.
The argument about Kangaroos is incredibly stupid. You've made me regret that I ever introduced the topic.
How about if the rest of us can just let you have the very last word on Kangaroos so we can get back to the parts of the conversation that are fun? Would that be ok? Let's try it.
Hey everyone, Irontruth is totally right. Humans and Kangaroos have exactly the same jumping potential. The rules accurately model this. Anyone who says otherwise is scientifically inaccurate and having badwrongfun by questioning the game rules.
Now back to the rest of the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's all reasonable, and no one faults you for making a poorly researched, off-the-cuff comment. We have all made them. What you are being criticized for is your refusal to awknowledge that it was inaccurate when called out and your continued insistence that the point was valid despite the incongruent facts.
That's all reasonable, and no one faults you for making a poorly researched, off-the-cuff comment. We have all made them. What you are being criticized for is your refusal to awknowledge that it was inaccurate when called out and your continued insistence that the point was valid despite the incongruent facts.
Except the first "fact" that you, or anyone else, listed in this came well AFTER you guys jumped down my throat on this.
Try and sell me some other bullshit.
Try and sell me some other b*+&&$*#.
Instead of bull&$*#, would you prefer kangaroo&$*#? How about moose&$*#?
Less jumping more comedy.
The capability of comedy for humans and kangaroos is oddly similar.
The capability of comedy for humans and kangaroos is oddly similar.
A kangaroo joey is cuter than a human Joey though.
Whoa.
|
Lots of my pet peeves about the disconnect between game rules and reality have already been mentioned. I couple I don't think I've seen, though:
Horses are treated like automatons. Just put some food in them and go. Ride forever, they never get tired or get a stone in their shoes. One of your party members can be riding a bear and the horses never shy from it. While dealing with lame, spooked, or colicky horses isn't something I really want to do in-game, I do sometimes wish a little bit of realism would creep in.
Language. In the modern world English is equivalent to Common, but in a pseudo-medieval world there would be no such thing. I learned to roleplay in RuneQuest, which has no "Common" language, only Tradetalk, which wasn't complex enough to allow normal conversation and was only good for simple bartering. I kind of miss that, thought it can be frustrating if you've got party members who don't all share a language.
I also really hate the mixing of armor and weapons from different cultures and periods of history. I wish they wouldn't put stats in for just everything. Save the exotic stuff for supplements in settings where those items might actually naturally be found. Your character from pseudo-medieval-Europe doesn't need a chakram.
Lots of my pet peeves about the disconnect between game rules and reality have already been mentioned. I couple I don't think I've seen, though:
Horses are treated like automatons. Just put some food in them and go. Ride forever, they never get tired or get a stone in their shoes. One of your party members can be riding a bear and the horses never shy from it. While dealing with lame, spooked, or colicky horses isn't something I really want to do in-game, I do sometimes wish a little bit of realism would creep in.
Language. In the modern world English is equivalent to Common, but in a pseudo-medieval world there would be no such thing. I learned to roleplay in RuneQuest, which has no "Common" language, only Tradetalk, which wasn't complex enough to allow normal conversation and was only good for simple bartering. I kind of miss that, thought it can be frustrating if you've got party members who don't all share a language.
I also really hate the mixing of armor and weapons from different cultures and periods of history. I wish they wouldn't put stats in for just everything. Save the exotic stuff for supplements in settings where those items might actually naturally be found. Your character from pseudo-medieval-Europe doesn't need a chakram.
To tell the truth, it's not just horses that are treated that way. Unless your GM is having you roll Knowledge (Local) or Survival to dig a latrine, most characters are treated the same.
Languages I think were inherited from Lord of the Rings where there was a 'common' tongue, Elvish was learnable but hard, Dwarvish was secret; Orcish never lifted off, and Hobbitish was abandoned. Although it's everywhere anyway.
Personally, I still hate that 'morningstar' is a spiky club and not 'swinging ball of death on a chain'. But I don't know how easy it is to justify restricting weapons. History can unfold in strange directions if allowed, and trade happens.
Hm. One thing that comes to mind is how wizards, clerics, paladins, and even fighters are hosed on skill points. And only wizards have builds that help put more skill points in. I know there's some sort of 'balance' thing going on but shouldn't they have at least enough to do their jobs?
|
|
Hm. One thing that comes to mind is how wizards, clerics, paladins, and even fighters are hosed on skill points. And only wizards have builds that help put more skill points in. I know there's some sort of 'balance' thing going on but shouldn't they have at least enough to do their jobs?
I completely agree! I realize my wizard has spent most of her life learning magic, but couldn't she have picked up a few other things along the way? Even the kids in Harry Potter learned a bit about the world they live in, and most RPG characters are at least a few years older than those characters. What if my wizard is an elf, and I decide to start out at first level in the 'Middle-Aged' age category? That gives her more intelligence for putting ranks in skills, but doesn't give her any more class skills or ranks per level. What has my elf been doing for all those years if all she can cast are 1st-level spells, and she doesn't know how to ride a horse or treat a wound? If learning magic is anything like Hogwarts, being able to treat injuries would be a very good thing for a wizard!
And another thing that just came to me:
I was working on a new wizard character's familiar, and I realized that an ordinary cat has claw attack damage of 1d2-4. Seriously?! I realize there's a minimum of 1 damage, but why bother having a damage value that calculates as a negative number? Anyway, we all know that cats' claws and bite can do at least 2 damage without a critical.
And cats should have a bonus to their CMD for resisting grapples, as well as a bonus to Escape Artist checks. Anyone who's ever tried to put a cat in a carrier knows how hard it is to hold onto a cat who doesn't want to be held.
I honestly don't mind when the mechanics don't match OUR world.
It bothers me a lot, though, when they don't match the GAME world.
Which is why I ended up rewriting most of them.^This is the crux of the matter is it not? Verisimilitude.
Everyone is assuming Pathfinder with this OP but it's not specifically called out is it? So...
I never understood why the Star Trek universe didn't do just about everything by transporter technology. They make food with it, entertain themselves with it (Holodecks), and transport to/from other places with it, naturally.
But why don't they do surgery with it?
They even talk about the Heisenberg Compensator, so they expressly state they are manipulating sub-atomic particles and incredible amounts of energy with an improbable degree of accuracy. Yet surgery is still a thing pretty much recognizable to today's surgeons.
And its use as a weapon is mind boggling. Phasers? Srsly? No, I'm going to transporter bomb the #### out of that Klingon cruiser.
Etc.
Eh, I'm always more fond of its use in stealing instead.
"Fire all torpedoes! Make the Starfleeters suffer!"
"Sir, the magnetic launchers in the torpedo tubes are missing. We can't fire!"
Over on the other ship...
"I wonder if they needed these. Ah, well."
BOOM!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize my wizard has spent most of her life learning magic, but couldn't she have picked up a few other things along the way?
You realize that the wizard has 2 + Int bonus skill points/level, right? And that wizards can't cast spells unless their Int is high enough? So, at the end of the day, they end up with more skill points than rogues? And that you don't need to spend skill points on Concentration anymore, because in PF you get it for free?
What has my elf been doing for all those years if all she can cast are 1st-level spells, and she doesn't know how to ride a horse or treat a wound?
If you want to ride a horse, take the Ride skill. If you want to treat a wound, take the Heal skill. Cross-class ranks don't even cost double anymore, so there's very little advantage to having something as a class skill. Pathfinder is pretty much set up so that wizards are more skilled at more things than anyone else. Also, starting at middle-aged in order to cheese extra Int is considered poor form, and most DMs with half a brain will nix it.
Even the kids in Harry Potter learned a bit about the world they live in
At 1st level, assuming Int 17, you have 5 skills. Take Ride and Heal. Take Spellcraft if you want. Take Fly in case you find a magic broom. And you still have one left over. Harry Potter would be envious.
And all that ignores the fact that PF wizards would be fine with no skills at all, because that their low-level spells are, for the most part, 1,000x better than any skill (hint: compare Climb and spider climb).
And, despite all that, you still want MORE skill points for them?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
You realize that the wizard has 2 + Int bonus skill points/level, right? And that wizards can't cast spells unless their Int is high enough? So, at the end of the day, they end up with more skill points than rogues? And that you don't need to spend skill points on Concentration anymore, because in PF you get it for free?
If you want to ride a horse, take the Ride skill. If you want to treat a wound, take the Heal skill. Cross-class ranks don't even cost double anymore, so there's very little advantage to having something as a class skill. Pathfinder is pretty much set up so that wizards are more skilled at more things than anyone else. Also, starting at middle-aged in order to cheese extra Int is considered poor form, and most DMs with half a brain will nix it.
At 1st level, assuming Int 17, you have 5 skills. Take Ride and Heal. Take Spellcraft if you want. Take Fly in case you find a magic broom. And you still have one left over. Harry Potter would be envious.
And all that ignores the fact that PF wizards would be fine with no skills at all, because that their low-level spells are, for the most part, 1,000x better than any skill (hint: compare Climb and spider climb).
And, despite all that, you still want MORE skill points for them?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I ALWAYS want more skill points. :-)
I realize Pathfinder doesn't penalize for taking ranks in cross-class skills, but putting a rank in a non-class skill means one less rank in a class skill, and the game still strongly encourages focusing on class skills. If you need X ranks in a skill to gain a feat, you might have to wait three more levels to take that feat just because you put one rank into a non-class skill.
And yes, I do think my elf wizard or dwarf paladin who is over 100 years old should get more skill points than a 17-year-old character. I don't think I should have to short other ability scores to get a high INT so I can model my character's age and experience more effectively. Level-based RPGs just don't handle long-lived races very well. That was really my point, although I didn't state it very well in my original post.
I was working on a new wizard character's familiar, and I realized that an ordinary cat has claw attack damage of 1d2-4. Seriously?! I realize there's a minimum of 1 damage, but why bother having a damage value that calculates as a negative number? Anyway, we all know that cats' claws and bite can do at least 2 damage without a critical.
That makes sense if you remember that you can alter a cat's size, and then you have to alter those numbers as well. If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you need X ranks in a skill to gain a feat, you might have to wait three more levels to take that feat just because you put one rank into a non-class skill.
Huh?
I was working on a new wizard character's familiar, and I realized that an ordinary cat has claw attack damage of 1d2-4. Seriously?! I realize there's a minimum of 1 damage, but why bother having a damage value that calculates as a negative number? Anyway, we all know that cats' claws and bite can do at least 2 damage without a critical.That makes sense if you remember that you can alter a cat's size, and then you have to alter those numbers as well. If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.
Damage 1 increases to 1d2, it's on the weapon size chart.
Damage 1 increases to 1d2, it's on the weapon size chart.I was working on a new wizard character's familiar, and I realized that an ordinary cat has claw attack damage of 1d2-4. Seriously?! I realize there's a minimum of 1 damage, but why bother having a damage value that calculates as a negative number? Anyway, we all know that cats' claws and bite can do at least 2 damage without a critical.That makes sense if you remember that you can alter a cat's size, and then you have to alter those numbers as well. If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.
Yes, I can see that, thank you. But a cat doesn't do 1 point of damage. It does 1d2-4. The question was why doesn't the cat say it does 1 damage when that's what the math will always work out to.
Yes, I can see that, thank you. But a cat doesn't do 1 point of damage. It does 1d2-4. The question was why doesn't the cat say it does 1 damage when that's what the math will always work out to.Damage 1 increases to 1d2, it's on the weapon size chart.I was working on a new wizard character's familiar, and I realized that an ordinary cat has claw attack damage of 1d2-4. Seriously?! I realize there's a minimum of 1 damage, but why bother having a damage value that calculates as a negative number? Anyway, we all know that cats' claws and bite can do at least 2 damage without a critical.That makes sense if you remember that you can alter a cat's size, and then you have to alter those numbers as well. If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.
You said...
If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.
I'm pointing out that we do know where to go from there. 1 damage increases to 1d2 damage. It's on the chart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacks of Opportunity. Having fenced in college (and been involved in a few free for all goof off sessions) I can tell you if you turn to stab at someone moving through your reach your primary opponent can get an AoO on you as quickly as you strike the other guy.