Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2303637" data-attributes="member: 6939">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.  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. 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..</blockquote>

Verification