Would you have allowed this?

[Jack Simth]

Ah, but we aren't talking about a set triangle where the question is along the lines of "You can measure this side, estimate these two angles, and need to come up with the exact position of the third point"

No, what we have, is something more along the lines of "You can move along this line, and at any point on this line you can approximate the angle to an unknown destination point. Where is the exact position of the destination point?"

Here:
*: Destination Point
________________ tunnel line
A, B, C, D - named points along Tunnel Line
Note that this picture is sideways

*



A___B____C____D____

Okay - so you are moving down the shaft; at point D, you take a reading, and find that you don't have a 30, 45, 60, or 90 degree angle. Oh well, you continue along. A little before C, you have an angle less than 45 degrees. A little beyond, you have more than 45 degrees. 45 degrees is a useful angle, so you go back and forth, and keep checking until you find a C where you have a 45 degree angle. You mark the spot. You continue along, and at B you find you don't have a 30, 45, 60, or 90 degree angle. Oh well, you continue along. When you reach A (in the same way you found C) you capture a 90 degree angle, and mark the spot. Guess what? The distance from A to C is the same as the distance from A to *, and you know the direction from A to *. Congrats, you've found him.

How do you measure the angles accurately? Well, it's simple: Standard triangles. You can construct a right triangle by measuring out the sides as length 3, 4, and 5. The specific unit used is completely immaterial - got a dagger? It's length can be your unit. It's fairly simple to come up with a 90 degree angle this way. Once you have a 90 degree angle, you can make a 45 degree angle by measuring out an equal distance along the two edges from the 90 degree angle and connecting them - either corner angle will be 45 degrees. As you are in a shaft that is defined as perfectly vertical, you can use a plumb (a simple weighted cord) to get the reference down, and can thus measure each angle on the same line.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think people are seriously underestimating how smart a 22 intelligence is. It is quite likely that there has never been a 22 intelligence human on the planet.

Population 6 billion, 0.01% have a base 18, aged 3 increments, level 4+ = 22

Smarty pants reply aside, I'd let the character make some maths check vs DC 20 (or 25?), no doubt it'd default to an int check.

However in my book BBEGs that get taken with their pants down are hardly BBEGs.

 

[Jack Simth]

Yeah - what was he thinking; no Nondetection? No Mindblank? No Mage's Private Sanctum? No Dimensional Lock? No Permanent Prismatic Sphere (now THAT's a Private Sanctum - especially if you can arrange for it to include the entire sphere and still use it)?

 

[Coredump]

No, what we have, is something more along the lines of "You can move along this line, and at any point on this line you can approximate the angle to an unknown destination point. Where is the exact position of the destination point?"

Yep, I agree.

Okay - so you are moving down the shaft; at point D, you take a reading, and find that you don't have a 30, 45, 60, or 90 degree angle.

Agreed in concept, but you are making assumptions. The shaft is 250', so at *max* that is as long as you can measure. It may be safer to figure it at 200'
The range of the locate creature is over 800'. We don't know, but it is quite likely that there was *no* standard triangle that would work.

Plus, you are assuming that locate creature works like a laser coming from your eyes. Is it measuring from your eyes? hand? feet? center of mass? What is the target location? How much error does this create? what if when you assume 90 degrees, but you are 3' lower than you should be (ie, your head and his waist), more error

Guess what? The distance from A to C is the same as the distance from A to *, and you know the direction from A to *. Congrats, you've found him.

Again, yep in theory. But now you must make an 'accurate' measurement of 200' (ish) using knotted rope. Assuming your angles are right, and the rope is *exactly* right, etc. Pencil and paper,easily done...in the field? on the fly? hmmmm....

And, you are assuming that in all the time it takes to make these measurements, he never moves....

Standard triangles. You can construct a right triangle by measuring out the sides as length 3, 4, and 5.

Again, easy in theory. But actually try and do this. To make it come out right, you have to guess at the angle. Now, you can modify things when the third line doesn't match up. Or you can make 3 'sticks' first. But still, every step adds approximations and error, and that error propogates. A very small error on your measuring tool, will be a very large error in the implementation.

Lets say you make it 9x12x15 inches, and are off by only a quarter inch, that can easily lead to 20' off the final.

As you are in a shaft that is defined as perfectly vertical, you can use a plumb (a simple weighted cord) to get the reference down, and can thus measure each angle on the same line.

Assuming you can use a standard triangle, sure. But there is still error involved. Just the thickness of the rope/string/line/etc can mean a degree or two.

Lets say after *all* of these approximations and field solutions, you end up 2 degrees off. If he is only 400 feet away, that means 14 feet off. And that is being nice.

Check out how small 5 degrees is. It is hard to draw an angle that small. But if you are 5 degrees off, and he is 600 feet away, you will end up 54 feet off.

Now, chances are you will still beokay. you all take 1d6 and get shunted somewhere okay. But directly to where he is? unlikely. (It also raises the question: Does the shunting get resolved separetly for each one, or for the group as a whole. It could end up with the party being split up.)

All of these measurements, *all* of them, will introduce error. Some not much, some by a lot. But they are on a very small scale, when you try and extend to 400-900 feet away, those 'very small' errors mean really far off. And intelligence really doesn't even come into play.

 

[Jack Simth]

You can also repeat the procedure a few times to reduce your error - it doesn't actually reduce specific error, but if you average four independant attempts then chances are you will be surprisingly close to accurate - sort of how if you roll 1d6 four times and average the result, you are likely to be much closer to the "true" average of a 1d6 (3.5) than you are if you just roll 1d6 and call that the average.

Sure, there is going to be some variation - but it can be done, and hey, that's a big part of what a skill/ability check is for - how close were you on the various places where you can get it wrong or a little off - but it can be done by someone with a little knoweledge, some simple tools, and some time.

As for the comparative distances (200 ft tunnel, up to 800 ft away), the 45 degree was just a fairly simple one for demonstration purposes - you can just as easily use a 2:1 ratio on the distances without knowing that such a ratio gives you an angle of about 26.6 degrees. A 4:1 sides ratio could also be used, granting about a 14.0 degree angle (which has a decent chance of working with a 200 foot shaft and an 800 foot range). At the extreme (BBEG is at the middle level of the 200 foot shaft and the max 800 feet distant) you can use an 8:1 sides ratio - with about a 7.1 degree angle (not that it matters). You really only need similar triangles, not standard ones (other than to obtain a 90 degree angle to base the others off of).

As for the issue about him moving, well, Locate Creature tells you if the subject is on the move.

As for assuming the precision on Locate Creature, well, I am - sort of. I picture it like being one of those hand-held seaman's tools that lets you hear a beacon if it's pointed in the right direction - if you are off just a hair, you can still hear the beacon, but it's a little fuzzy. If you are pointed in the exact right direction, you hear it clearly (or most clearly; there can still be some static). It obviously doesn't specify to such a degree what the accuracy on the spell is, so it's a DM call, either way.

As for specific references for the location the spell gives (e.g., from head? From feet? To Head? To Feet?) it seems like a wizard casting his spell ought to know such specifics of the mechanics on his spell, and thus be able to account for them, no?

 

[Snowy]

fair enough this thread has descended into people arguing about whether you can do trig in the field accurately.

But did I just read that you can measure an angle correctly?
As in you can't draw a circle and draw 180 straight equally spaced lines through the center. Then using a piece of string and a weight to determine vertical.


Right, um, ok.


The actual point is how hard a check it would be and how high a target can they reach.

Knowledge engineering (+6) +2
Dwarf to help with depth +2
Some sort of technique for measuring angles +2

and I'd use those as modifiers to probably an intelligence or knowledge mathematics (I'd probably persuade people not to take that skill though) or maybe change it and use knowledge engineering.

So maybe a +6 (int) +6 bonus' and your making about 22

DC 25 is a hard task outside any normal persons means.
So to check, with the bonus' I allowed an average dwarf with some tools and some relevent knowledge could get 0 (int) +6 average 16, no where near the proposed DC.

I'd say about right, though as someone said I wouldn't have told you the DC, though I would give you some idea about how hard it was gonna be.
The problem I'd see with the plan is the time taken to do the measurements, If they knew you were coming, they'd be coming out to meet you or something worse

 

[Coredump]

The actual point is how hard a check it would be and how high a target can they reach.

There are two issues that need to be addressed.

1. Does *anyone* know how to do this type of trig. In a world that magic works, and dwarves just inherrently 'know' things....would there ever be an effort to learn this? Remember, even on earth, we went for thousands of years doing amazing things without this level of trig.

2. Does a level of 6 in engineering mean you are specialized enough to also know how to do this type of calculation.

3. Do you have enough tools in the field to be able to pull this off? (books, tables, etc.)

4. Even if you are a physics super-genius, and you know how to do all of this, and you have an HP calculator at your side (Ti is for posers....;-) Can you get measurements anywhere near accurate enough to get you anywhere near where the BBEG is supposed to be.


In my campaign, I have not yet decided if trig is known, as it may not be necessary. But that is a campaign specific issue.

I think it would be a DC 20+ check just to see if you know how to do this. Having a mere 6 ranks in engin/architecture just isn't that impressive. You can cut stones, and make a short wall not fall down.... doesn't mean you are the one in charge of the design.

Aside from my opinions on the first two, it is the last one that really does it. Even if you put a party of Feynman, Einstein and Hawking in that shaft, they would be damn hard pressed to get a decent reading. GIGO is the rule. Garbage In, Garbage Out. There is no way of getting good data to use in the equation, even if they knew the equation. (and really, the dwarf helping with the depth isn't a help, they can get much better readings with a rope.)

 

[BullMarkOne]

I think yer dm made the right play, this time. As a dm I believe in rewarding original ideas. The 25 dc seems pretty good, I might have made it a 30 myself, and let you use your knowledge engineering ranks, but that's neither here nor there. The thing is it was a pretty cool work around, and if i hadn't anticipated it you at least deserved an attempt. Heck, I'd even toss in a few bonus xp when you succeeded. Now, I wouldn't expect to get away with it too often, like ever again, however.

 

[Jack Simth]

There are two issues that need to be addressed.

1. Does *anyone* know how to do this type of trig. In a world that magic works, and dwarves just inherrently 'know' things....would there ever be an effort to learn this? Remember, even on earth, we went for thousands of years doing amazing things without this level of trig.

That level isn't so hard. Seriously; it's similar triangles and basic multiplication.

2. Does a level of 6 in engineering mean you are specialized enough to also know how to do this type of calculation.

The 3/4/5 thing is very useful - it's one of the simplest ways, in the field, to make sure your corners are square for laying a straight foundation. It's thought that the Egyptians knew of it when putting the pyramids together. Beyond that step, it's just similar triangles and multiplication.

3. Do you have enough tools in the field to be able to pull this off? (books, tables, etc.)

Don't need books, tables, et cetera - some rope, a knife, and something to use as an increment (e.g., another knife) will work.

4. Even if you are a physics super-genius, and you know how to do all of this, and you have an HP calculator at your side (Ti is for posers....;-) Can you get measurements anywhere near accurate enough to get you anywhere near where the BBEG is supposed to be.

That's what a die roll is for. Even if you are a super judge, could you realisticly hit a five foot sqare from 500 feet? In D&D, a 10th level fighter can, reasonably often, with a longbow, and 22 dex (22 was the int of the Wizard in question, so this isn't unreasonable). 5 range increments makes for -10, the dex adds +6 (-4 modifier, all told), and the square has an effective AC of 5. He makes it on a roll of 9 or better - over half the time. At 600 feet, he needs an 11. At 1000 feet, he needs a 19 or twenty. And he's just eyeballing it, without any feats invested in the task. Tell me, what's the relative angle of a five-foot square at 1000 feet? Nevermind - I've got a calculator handy: 0.286 degrees. At 500 feet, that's a bit more, at a little over half a degree. Perhaps he just needs the fighter in the group to tell him how close he is, eh?

 

[Coredump]

That level isn't so hard. Seriously; it's similar triangles and basic multiplication.

Yes, I understand it isn't very hard. Not in 2005. It is hard for people to realize how different things were before the ascendence of The Scientific Method.
It was an accepted *FACT* that an old shirt and some grain would spontaneously turn into a mouse. Afterall, a bit of the shirt and grain would disappear, and a mouse appear.
Pasteur was greatly ridiculed before he could prove the difference, and that was only a couple hundred years ago.

Look at Ptolemy, he did a *lot* of cool work advancing Trig. And he used it, along with hundreds of obervations and calculations, to *prove* that the sun (and planets) orbited the earth. Not only that, but his proof stood for *1,500* years. Again, only a few hundred years ago.

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

Now, imagine if magic worked, and the gods were known and provable entities. Would it even be necessary to 'invent' trig? Would anyone think of it? Would anyone care? Earth folks barely cared. And for the most part, they got it wrong, very very wrong.

The point of 1. isn't "could they understand it" sure they could. It is "would they have been motivated enough to develop it". And that is far from being a sure thing.

The 3/4/5 thing is very useful - it's one of the simplest ways, in the field, to make sure your corners are square for laying a straight foundation.

Yes it is. And I understand it, and its usefulness. But would someone that studies "buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications" to a mere level of 6 ranks even know how to do it. I assume he doesn't know *everything* about all engineering and archetecture, does he know this? Even in places and timeperiods where this was known, it was a very very very few that actually knew it and/or used it. He should make a knowledge roll to see if he knows it, and then one to see if he does it right.

.That's what a die roll is for.

Sure, but then it should have been more like DC 40. There are many many ways to introduce error, and each one means 5-25' off target. He may have a whopping '6' in engineering, but how does that equate to the accuracy of the rope, or the inherrent error in the angle, etc. This would have gone off without a hitch, if McGyver was doing it. But not a human (even with a dwarf)

You keep saying "you could just do this", and your ideas are great...in theory, but to pull them off with *NO* error, is impossible. nor formidible. And once there is error, even a little bit, they are *way* off the mark. A small error in the shaft, means a very large error by the BBEG.

.