Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7720934" data-attributes="member: 22779">While, I see your point, there is a difference though.&nbsp; My point about DM's not being able to calculate odds has nothing to do with the DM being an ass.&nbsp; It's simply that MOST people are very poor at calculating odds.&nbsp; There's an entire industry devoted to that fact.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I remember one discussion here on the boards where a DM talked about using Acrobatics to avoid difficult terraing (in this case, mud).&nbsp; His ruling was a DC 15 Acrobatics check to move freely.&nbsp; On a fail, you were grappled.&nbsp; These were 5e rules.&nbsp; Now, that's a pretty commonplace ruling.&nbsp; I can totally see DM's doing that at a table and many people agreed with the ruling.&nbsp; Thing is, that ruling is very, very bad.&nbsp; Because, the thing is, most PC's would have about a 50:50 chance of success on that.&nbsp; So, you have a 50% chance of moving freely, or, you have a 50% chance of losing your entire round of actions (since you'd have to take an action to free yourself from the grapple).&nbsp; The risk reward calculation here is just nowhere near worth it.&nbsp; It would be far, far better to simply double move at half speed and not take any risk.&nbsp; And that's why I have a problem with the idea that tactics were supported back in the day.&nbsp; They weren't.&nbsp; They were almost always dependent on the DM's ruling.&nbsp; And DM's (and people in general) are notoriously bad at calculating risk:reward.&nbsp; It's almost always ruling against the players.&nbsp; Not intentionally.&nbsp; There's no malice here at all.&nbsp; it's just that people are bad at math, particularly calculating risk:reward.Now, in 4e's case, you had Page 42 to help you.&nbsp; Dumping that brazier onto the orc deals damage depending on the level of the adventure.&nbsp; Meaning that it's always a viable choice.&nbsp; If it's an absolute value, then, at a certain level, it stops being a viable choice.&nbsp; As you say, why give up an action to do something that is less (and sometimes wildly so) effective.&nbsp; That would be stupid.Only problem with that is, people freaked out about the idea that a brazier would have variable damage dependent on the level of the adventure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7720934, member: 22779"] While, I see your point, there is a difference though. My point about DM's not being able to calculate odds has nothing to do with the DM being an ass. It's simply that MOST people are very poor at calculating odds. There's an entire industry devoted to that fact. :D I remember one discussion here on the boards where a DM talked about using Acrobatics to avoid difficult terraing (in this case, mud). His ruling was a DC 15 Acrobatics check to move freely. On a fail, you were grappled. These were 5e rules. Now, that's a pretty commonplace ruling. I can totally see DM's doing that at a table and many people agreed with the ruling. Thing is, that ruling is very, very bad. Because, the thing is, most PC's would have about a 50:50 chance of success on that. So, you have a 50% chance of moving freely, or, you have a 50% chance of losing your entire round of actions (since you'd have to take an action to free yourself from the grapple). The risk reward calculation here is just nowhere near worth it. It would be far, far better to simply double move at half speed and not take any risk. And that's why I have a problem with the idea that tactics were supported back in the day. They weren't. They were almost always dependent on the DM's ruling. And DM's (and people in general) are notoriously bad at calculating risk:reward. It's almost always ruling against the players. Not intentionally. There's no malice here at all. it's just that people are bad at math, particularly calculating risk:reward. Now, in 4e's case, you had Page 42 to help you. Dumping that brazier onto the orc deals damage depending on the level of the adventure. Meaning that it's always a viable choice. If it's an absolute value, then, at a certain level, it stops being a viable choice. As you say, why give up an action to do something that is less (and sometimes wildly so) effective. That would be stupid. Only problem with that is, people freaked out about the idea that a brazier would have variable damage dependent on the level of the adventure. [/QUOTE]

Verification