Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7003566" data-attributes="member: 42582">This thread has really taken off, and I've only read up to post 20. So apologies if these response are behind-the-times!To my mind, there are two things going on here.One is about the fiction. What sort of tree are we thinking about? For a tree to do significant damage falling on PCs, it has to be a reasonably sized tree (not just a sapling). When I think of the big oak trees in the Victorian-era civic gardens around my suburb, I find it hard to imagine a normal person pushing them over - not just &quot;Very Hard&quot;, but not possible. Maybe serious weightlifter/strongest man types could - I don't know - but it still seems a bit unlikely.Which moves to the second issue - this doesn't seem to lend itself well to a d20 check. For those who can knock over the tree - like those who can tip over the car, or do 50 chin ups in a row, or whatever - success is largely automatic. Whereas for more puny individuals such as myself, success is impossible. But in a d20, bounded accuracy system you have to set the DC at 21 or thereabouts to give me no chance, at which point the ogre, even with advantage, has around a (4/5 ^2 = 16/25) two-thirds chance of failing.I think this gets the order of operations wrong according to the rules [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] cited. You have first assigned a DC, then computed certainty/uncertainty. Whereas in the stated procedures, one first decides certainty/uncertainty, then assigns a DC in the event of uncertainty.Those are significantly different procedures.Well, I was going to post something about &quot;Schrodinger's tree roots&quot;, cats and dogs living together, etc, but others beat me to it!(Not that I'm against it. But I've been through enough threads where many posters attack &quot;fail forward&quot; resolution, so-called &quot;dissociated&quot; mechancis, etc to know that what you propose will be controversial. It's also not clear how it fits into the official rules procedures that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] cited.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7003566, member: 42582"] This thread has really taken off, and I've only read up to post 20. So apologies if these response are behind-the-times! To my mind, there are two things going on here. One is about the fiction. What sort of tree are we thinking about? For a tree to do significant damage falling on PCs, it has to be a reasonably sized tree (not just a sapling). When I think of the big oak trees in the Victorian-era civic gardens around my suburb, I find it hard to imagine a normal person pushing them over - not just "Very Hard", but not possible. Maybe serious weightlifter/strongest man types could - I don't know - but it still seems a bit unlikely. Which moves to the second issue - this doesn't seem to lend itself well to a d20 check. For those who [I]can[/I] knock over the tree - like those who can tip over the car, or do 50 chin ups in a row, or whatever - success is largely automatic. Whereas for more puny individuals such as myself, success is impossible. But in a d20, bounded accuracy system you have to set the DC at 21 or thereabouts to give me no chance, at which point the ogre, even with advantage, has around a (4/5 ^2 = 16/25) two-thirds chance of failing. I think this gets the order of operations wrong according to the rules [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] cited. You have first assigned a DC, then computed certainty/uncertainty. Whereas in the stated procedures, one first decides certainty/uncertainty, then assigns a DC in the event of uncertainty. Those are significantly different procedures. Well, I was going to post something about "Schrodinger's tree roots", cats and dogs living together, etc, but others beat me to it! (Not that I'm against it. But I've been through enough threads where many posters attack "fail forward" resolution, so-called "dissociated" mechancis, etc to know that what you propose will be controversial. It's also not clear how it fits into the official rules procedures that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] cited.) [/QUOTE]

Verification