Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3881463" data-attributes="member: 2067">Comparative knowledge. Dealing an average of about 70 points of damage, the character has seen other things do comparable damage in different ways. Say he's taken full damage from a Red Great Wyrm's breath weapon and lived to tell the tale. The sages say that a Great Red Wyrm's breath is hotter than any volcano. He's taken it full unawares (failed his save) and lived to tell the tale. He knows he can handle a slight skip across the magma (or whatever).  The character does have an awareness of the capacity for destruction inherent in lava, in falling, and in anything that has ever struck him ever. Compared to a red dragon's breath, lava is a warm bath. Compared to both, a goblin warrior's morningstar isn't a threat (even held against his head, the fighter is immensely more skilled and faster than that warrior, and his skull's probably hardier, too). If he survived one, he can survive the other.Of course, just like in real life, this comparative knowledge is flawed: perhaps the DM rolled low for the red dragon's breath attack, perhaps he'll roll high for lava damage. Nothing is assured. But this is fully in-character knowledge: red dragon breath burns hotter than lava. He has many ways for accessing this knowledge (my favorite is in-character research), but the CHARACTER can have this knowledge. I assume that people who spend the amount of time plundering dangerous ancient ruins for gold that 20th level characters have spent will certainly have a working awareness of the comparative lethality of common dungeon hazards (such as lava). I don't have to get bitten by anything to know that I have a better chance of surviving a grass snake bite than a black mamba bite, and I don't need to catch rabies to know that an animal foaming at the mouth might have rabies. I can know that because it's knowledge that I can acquire that exists in the world. Similarly, in D&D, dangers like lava and great wyrm red dragons can very easily be known quantities to those characters who have an avid interest in them (and with the existence of adventuring bards, who trace the accounts, and wizards, who study the world's physics, it is quite likely that the more common adventuring hazards ARE well documented -- perhaps not great wyrm red dragons, but almost certainly falling). I don't have to endure a hardship to be able to guess if I can survive it. I can compare it to other hardships I've experienced. Thus, this wonderful comparative mind of mine can estimate risk (something that adventurers would probably be very adept at). Knowing the effects of lava, and knowing the effects of gravity, and knowing the effects of dragon breath, would allow a character to have a reasonable chance to estimate the chances of their survival in a fall, into lava, after being knocked over by dragon breath. It might also be able to tell them how well they might be able to survive a wizard's fireball.Because the effect of damage is an in-character effect that can be measured by the greybeards and adventurers of the setting, related to the next generation, and generally learned like human culture has learned to deal with any trouble it experiences. I don't need to know the FORT DC of the common cold vs. the FORT DC of AIDS, or have experienced either, to know that one is more likely to kill me than the other. Similarly, a fighter who is aware of the swath of destruction wrought by a great wyrm red dragon whose breath he has survived, and who is aware of the swath of destruction wrought by a volcano whose magma he has not presently survived, can compare the two and arrive at a reasonable estimation of his survival odds, completely in character.And there's nothing metagame whatsoever about any of that. GOLD PIECES are more metagame than this. It might assist things if you REMOVE this particular bias. Don't assume that you have the only valid operational definition of D&D characters. Things will go smoother. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But the answer to that isn't "get rid of it." It's "make the tactic more fun." There's a huge continuum between what 3.5 has now and "nothing" that is being ignored in the rush to find a solution to a problem that some DM's have. That problem deserves a solution, but "nix it" is a lazy solution that completely lacks imagination.I think it won't be a problem because:#1: 4e won't have much in the way of buffs. #2: How scrying works will probably change#3: How teleporting works will probably change.This will at the very least refine and limit the tactic.</blockquote>

Verification