Would you have allowed this?

[Coredump]

No one in history ever thought the world was flat. Well, maybe a few really dumb people, but it was never a common belief. After all, why else would the top of a ship be the first thing one sees when a ship appears on the horizon? Historically, people haven't been nearly as dumb as you assume.

But that is my point. It isn't about being 'dumb', it is about misinterpreting observations, incorrect premises, and having a *very* different take on 'scientific discovery'. You assume that their version of 'logic' is the same as our version of logic, and it wasn't always that way. We take it so naturally that the 'scientific method' is the only way of learning, that students are bored by it in school. "of course" we experiment that way...duh..... But that careful methodology has only been the case for a few hundred years.

I just have to point this out because it's one of the things that really annoys me. This is *NOT* a medieval setting. It's a fantasy setting. The two are dramatically different things.

I agree, which is why I said that certain issues were campaign issues, and certian ones were not. In my opinon, the fantasy setting makes it *less* likely that topics like 'advanced math' would be discovered. (It may even indicate different laws of physics/math exist) When such easy answers exist (arcane and divine magic) why spend all that time learning math? Would people even 'believe' in it enough to try and learn it? They barely believed in it on Earth, and we don't have nearly as much magic.



And remember folks, the DnD game is based on being a *game*, which means it has rules for game balance. Part of that is making important things harder to get and unimportant things easier. Do you *really* think that a high Int makes it that much easier to learn all of those different skills? (spot?, climbing?, etc?) Do you really think that it is the same 'difficulty' to master how to read *and* write Chinese, as get one rank in Perform(piano)?

Just like CR is designed to work for *1* encounter (as opposed to a player race) the game is balanced for players, not to explain the entire population.

 

[vulcan_idic]

I agree, which is why I said that certain issues were campaign issues, and certian ones were not. In my opinon, the fantasy setting makes it *less* likely that topics like 'advanced math' would be discovered. (It may even indicate different laws of physics/math exist) When such easy answers exist (arcane and divine magic) why spend all that time learning math? Would people even 'believe' in it enough to try and learn it? They barely believed in it on Earth, and we don't have nearly as much magic.

Maybe so, maybe not. It seems evident that your campaign settings such thought patterns would be prevalent, in mine less so. In my perspective magic in a fantasy world is not unnatural - it permeates the world and is natural, a fact of life. Those who study magic are studying the laws of their world as it exists and thus learning how it works. Math is magical, even more so in a world where magic is real and actual. Whether or not the populace at large would have a conception of the intracacies of how math and/or magic operate, I have little doubt that a mage who studies things in general and magic in particular, and has all their life would certainly understand how that magic operates at least at a fairly competent level - they must in order to produce the magical effects they do on a daily basis. Even so it would be easily arguable, as it has been in this case, that such a person of scholarly pursuits might be able to take such an approach. The general populace may believe or not in magic or math - it does not matter. What matters is that the scholar in question believes in them and is intelligent enough to reason out the way math or magic works - to solve for where to dimension door to... or to cast the dimension door itself.

And remember folks, the DnD game is based on being a *game*, which means it has rules for game balance. Part of that is making important things harder to get and unimportant things easier. Do you *really* think that a high Int makes it that much easier to learn all of those different skills? (spot?, climbing?, etc?) Do you really think that it is the same 'difficulty' to master how to read *and* write Chinese, as get one rank in Perform(piano)?

Just like CR is designed to work for *1* encounter (as opposed to a player race) the game is balanced for players, not to explain the entire population.

And as a game the primary objective is to have fun rather than authenically, painstakingly (and painfully) replicate every small niggling detail on any subject someone in the gaming group wishes to pontificate about and wish is were more "realistic". For it is certainly so important to have a faithful representation of the "realistic" mathematical, scientific, and other aspects of our fantasy population that we can afford to have dragons, spells, minotaurs, and so forth. Will allowing the player to do this enhance enjoyent of the game overall? Will disallowing this action increase overall group pleasure? Does it matter whether or not it's realistic? The DM's decision in this case moves the story forward in a pleasurable and memorable way for all those involved. To me this makes it an extremely successful decision regardless of it's plausibility or lack thereof from a mundane perspective.

That said this certainly seems to be a case of toe-MAY-toe/toe-MAH-toe. I wish all good games.

 

[Sejs]

I would've allowed it, but as a DM I wouldn't have given you an exact distance. I'd give you a ballpark range and then make you determine what distance you want to appear at.

And if you're off, you're probably going to wind up inside a very large solid object, such as the intervening stone strata, with the appropriate (likely fatal) consequences.

Given the character's int of 22, I'd probably warn you of the danger in advance though. If it works, you could end up in the BBEG's chamber and get the drop on him. If your calculations are off, it'll probably kill each and every one of you. The choice is yours.

 

[Darmanicus]

Because all character background and downtime activities must be explicitly told to the DM months in advance of them possibly being used? Nah, I don't think so. That seems overly ... restrictive ... to me.

Oh I don't know, just stick it on the background page of yer character sheet! It might take you several weeks and a coupla hennerd pages but a bit of time put in and you should just about be able ta cover all bases!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Maybe so, maybe not. It seems evident that your campaign settings such thought patterns would be prevalent, in mine less so. In my perspective magic in a fantasy world is not unnatural - it permeates the world and is natural, a fact of life. Those who study magic are studying the laws of their world as it exists and thus learning how it works. Math is magical, even more so in a world where magic is real and actual.

Perhaps this is just the way I've always thought of things, and I might be pretty alone in thinking so, but I've always imagined that wizard's spellbooks were an awful lot like DaVinci's notebooks.

Sure, there's actual magical forumulae in there, but there's also calculations on the radii of lantern archons, astrology charts (including momentous angles between specific stars), and other "scientific" esotera.

 

[kanithardm]

If he doesn't have skill pints in Knowlege(math), then he can only use an intelligence check for really easy questions(DC 10).

 

[Telas]

I'm of two minds on this:

1) It should be damned near impossible, even given a Dwarf, a rope, and a 22 INT. (Now if you had a wheelbarrow and a holocaust cloak... ) DC25 is the low end of my "acceptable DC range"; DC30 is more like it. Time spent working on accuracy would have helped, too.

2) It's a really cool and innovative (dare I say "cinematic"?) action to take, especially given the risk factor involved. For this reason alone, I'd be willing to lower the to DC25. Fortune favors the brave and all that....

Telas

PS: I apologize for perpetrating the overuse of the "cinematic" descriptor. Remember what happened the last time D&D met the cinema....

T

 

[Mark Chance]

At one point, it was made a law that Pi equaled 3.0 Thats it, it was a law.

Untrue.

 

[VirgilCaine]

This is a good thread. Trigonometry in D&D (Which, BTW, is NOT a "medieval setting"--it is pseudo-medieval at best.).

 

[Telas]

This is a good thread. Trigonometry in D&D (Which, BTW, is NOT a "medieval setting"--it is pseudo-medieval at best.).

Not to quibble, but it really depends on your campaign setting, doesn't it?

It is a good thread, though.

Telas