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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5156688" data-attributes="member: 80487">Fine. What is another way? Let's see ...I disagree. A significantly different calculation is not following those operations. That is, quite simply, what makes it different in the first place!Whatever this may mean, I am pretty sure it's at odds with:The favorable factor normally accruing to party A is 1, i.e., parties of this sort are normally surprised on 1 or 2, but this party is surprised only on a 1 -- therefore they have an additional 1 in 6 to their favor (and not a 50% better chance).It looks as if you proposeNotice how that's an entirely different process than what is actually printed in the DMG.What are you doing here? 1/8 divided by 1/3 would be 3/8, and that multiplied by 5/6 would be 15/48, or 5/16. Is that what you really meant to do?Notice how that directly contradicts the very explicit and emphasized statement that the factor of 1 less than 2 is what applies, "not a 50% better chance".If, instead of a goof in maths, you've got something even more convoluted going on, then it's only so much further removed from the text.I am sure the 2E version is even harder to misconstrue. However, someone determined to go through such acrobatics of inserting a multiplication problem pulled out of thin air in direct contradiction of a warning not to do so can probably manage to confuse himself no matter what.No. I am suggesting the same thing as MerricB: that the monk's surprise chance "doesn't integrate with the surprise system at all".That's no critique of the surprise system. It's a critique of the new monk class -- and, more generally, of the haphazard development and editing that did not catch and tie up (or snip off) that loose end. Just what Gary meant to do with it (and probably thought he had, somewhere in those thousands of manuscript pages), I don't know. It is certainly not the only thing that "slipped through the cracks", and (as far as I know) never got corrected.I have said repeatedly that I appreciate the clarity and organization of the second edition! Being more like that is one of the fine qualities of OSRIC.</blockquote>

Verification