Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Omega the Powerfull 07-25-06, 06:39 PM	I may be very wrong, but you can correct me if so. Why the base AC of a character is 10? it should be 11 The logic tells me that if an attacker has no bonus nor penalties, and the defender has no bonus nor penalties, the attacker should have 50% chance either for missing or hitting. In a 20 sided dice there are 20 possibilities 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1 7,18,19,20 But by the rules this attaker as I described can hit with a 10 - so he has 55% chance of hitting and 45% chance of failing; The same goes for spell DC's
savant_warlord13 07-25-06, 06:42 PM	yes, I have noticed this too. You can get around it by saying that you need to exceed rather than meet the DC
MarkB 07-25-06, 06:46 PM	I may be very wrong, but you can correct me if so. Why the base AC of a character is 10? it should be 11 The logic tells me that if an attacker has no bonus nor penalties, and the defender has no bonus nor penalties, the attacker should have 50% chance either for missing or hitting. Why?
Discordant_Derision 07-25-06, 06:47 PM	Because 10 is much simpler to use as a base and is not a huge deal to have the base be 10 rather than 11. The designers were probably thinking, "OK, the average roll is 10.5. Well, AC needs to be either 10 or 11, and 10 is a rounder number, let's go with that. Sound good, alright, Miller time..."
savant_warlord13 07-25-06, 06:47 PM	Why? Because the DM's guide said so. It says that at DC 10, the average 1st level human commoner should be able to succeed half of the time.
Burgundy Lotus 07-25-06, 06:51 PM	the key word there is SHOULD, not WILL 10 as opposed to 11 isn't that big a deal, it makes doing the math much easier too!
Some_call_me_Tim 07-25-06, 06:55 PM	Because the DM's guide said so.Where exactly does it say that? I can find where it says "would have about a 50% chance" (DMG p. 31, table 2-5 notes).
Doomclown 07-25-06, 07:04 PM	The 50% chance to hit is only a rough guide. Even if AC were base 11, attack bonuses are usually not going to be "average" anyway, which means the attacker will have a higher or lower than average chance to hit. That's ok. So, why sacrifice rule clarity to be slightly more accurate in enforcing your arbitrary average?
Cifer 07-25-06, 07:48 PM	I've got to admit I fail to see the tragedy in an average person being able to hit a not-very dexterous and unarmored person 55% of all times. I'd say I'd manage a better quota and would rate my strength rather below 10.
kelvinaw273 07-25-06, 09:22 PM	Remember also that the average human commoner is not particularly competent at hitting things.
Horatio Hornblower 07-25-06, 11:23 PM	DMG page 25 - Variant: Defense Roll One way to look at it is that without the defense roll, characters are "taking 10" on the roll each round, and thus are using a base of 10 for Armor Class. You are taking 10 on your ability to avoid being hit.
Omega the Powerfull 07-25-06, 11:38 PM	Where exactly does it say that? I can find where it says "would have about a 50% chance" (DMG p. 31, table 2-5 notes). The book doesn't make clear, but what would be around 50% in your opinion? 40-60%..... more than 8 in a 20d dice? or 30-70%.... more than 6 in a 20d dice? or would it be 50-50% chance from 1-10 (ten numbers) and 11-20 (ten numbers) Doesn't it make more sense? Note that in the rules, if you hit an AC when your roll equals to it's number (in our case we have no bonuses), and the base AC is 10 you can hit with eleven numbers from 10 to 20 (55% chance) and miss with nine 1-9 (45% chance)
Omega the Powerfull 07-25-06, 11:50 PM	I've got to admit I fail to see the tragedy in an average person being able to hit a not-very dexterous and unarmored person 55% of all times. I'd say I'd manage a better quota and would rate my strength rather below 10. There is no tragedy to see here, but that's the point I fail to se the logic in the system. What's the point in rules that doesn't make sense? And a not very dexterous person, and a not very strong person are the ones we are comparing here both have a flat 10 in their abilities and no bonuses - why would any of them hit better then the other? In the same way I could use a new rule my group - the base AC is now 2 - why? because the rules doens't make sense after all.
Lafarallin 07-25-06, 11:56 PM	Is it possible that in AD&D 1st & 2nd Edition the base armor class for an unarmored character with no dexterity was AC 10. For simplicity sake perhaps they just kept 10 as the base AC when they tossed THAC0?
fatal error 07-26-06, 01:01 AM	There is no tragedy to see here, but that's the point I fail to se the logic in the system. What's the point in rules that doesn't make sense? And a not very dexterous person, and a not very strong person are the ones we are comparing here both have a flat 10 in their abilities and no bonuses - why would any of them hit better then the other? In the same way I could use a new rule my group - the base AC is now 2 - why? because the rules doens't make sense after all. You already got your pointless answer, you're taking 10 on defense.
Fallenangel359 07-26-06, 01:19 AM	actually, it is still 50% 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 to miss 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 to hit Wait... do you have to meet, or excede? In all the games I've played, we always played excede....
Whisper_Swiftblade 07-26-06, 01:28 AM	You are taking 10 on your ability to avoid being hit. but you can not just take a ten if you are threatened, like you would be f someone is trying to hit you.
weasel0 07-26-06, 02:03 AM	actually, it is still 50% Wait... do you have to meet, or excede? In all the games I've played, we always played excede.... It's meet. Basically, it's a saving throw versus an armor rating. If you meet or excede the DC for a characters armor class(AC), the attack goes through. It's a moot point, but a valid one. If it bugs you, use 11. Here's my take on it though. It's easier to hit something than to dodge something. If both A and B have "average" str and dex respectivly, then A is going to have an easy time hitting B, and the more times B gets hit, the more likely B takes dmg. Just because B isn't hurt doesn't mean A missed. It just means he failed to inflict injury. Dex bonus means you can better move out of the way. Better armor bonus means more blows bounce or glance off harmlessly. Dodge ball. It's easier to catch the ball than to dodge. Boxers punch each other a whole lot, but not all of those punches actually does anything. It's easier to block the punch than to dodge it. But the more punches a boxer stops, the more likely he is to take dmg. And yes, that's exactly where the base 10 comes from, hold over from THAC0. (To Hit AC 0 = 10) Normal humanoid. No armor. No dex. Just my 2coppers.
Leilond 07-26-06, 03:20 AM	Example I come with a club smashing you and you try to avoid. How many times do I hit you in 6 seconds (1 round)? What does this question mean? That hitting is simplier than avoiding if you're untrained so the 55-45 is more belivable than 50-50
Shatteredtower 07-26-06, 03:30 AM	There is no tragedy to see here, but that's the point I fail to se the logic in the system.What's logical about expecting an average human to hit another average human once every two swings? Nothing at all. The odds are entirely arbitrary in that sense. It only starts to make sense when you think of it in terms of game balance. What's the point in rules that doesn't make sense?Sure it does. It's geared for minds that think of numbers recorded in decimal notation. When you make your foundation an 11, you start seeing people make mistakes a lot more often -- in much the same way that the average person can't figure out military time without a lot of practice. (I can't tell you how often people have entered 1400 on my logs when they meant 1600hrs -- and how many have become completely lost when presented with times from 2000 to 2400hrs.) Ease of play is no less important than game balance. That's the logic behind using 10. And a not very dexterous person, and a not very strong person are the ones we are comparing here both have a flat 10 in their abilities and no bonuses - why would any of them hit better then the other?Here's one simple reason: both are focused on hitting each other, not on avoiding a hit. As such, they're slightly more likely to succeed offensively than they are defensively. If one should happen to fight defensively, his opponent's chances of hitting him with a given swing are now 45%, but he's only got a 35% chance of hitting his foe in return. Meanwhile, if he'd gone entirely on the defensive, his opponent would only hit him about 35% of the time. All of these numbers suggest that the best defense is generally a good offense for the average individual. Now consider the fact that while Joe Commoner has a 55% chance of hitting Bob Commoner with his spear and Bob has the same odds of hitting Joe with his dagger, they'd have only a 35% chance of hitting one another if they switched weapons. Does that strike you as making more sense than rules that give each of them a base 55% chance of hitting one another? Imagine if they were both using clubs and fighting defensively: now they each have a one in four chance of hitting each other on a given swing. Or give them slings, and give them tree to hide behind 30 feet from each other, when the odds of them hitting each other are now only 5% if both are fighting defensively. Are any of these numbers based on logical expectations of a fight between average individuals or are they merely the results of an effort at creating balanced rules mechanics? In the same way I could use a new rule my group - the base AC is now 2 - why? because the rules doens't make sense after all.They would if you thought in binary. Likewise, if you thought in hexadecimal, it would make sense to have 16 as the base AC. Why make things unnecessarily difficult? That is not logical.
Sorti 07-26-06, 07:50 AM	They would if you thought in binary. Likewise, if you thought in hexadecimal, it would make sense to have 16 as the base AC. Why make things unnecessarily difficult? That is not logical. Well, in Hex you can have AC AC :D ! (that's 172).
Arganis 07-26-06, 09:11 AM	Wow there is totally nothing to see here.
Ryusage 07-26-06, 09:14 AM	Ok... a lvl one fighter has BAB +1, right? Disregarding Dex or Str bonus, that makes the chances 50/50.
Leilond 07-26-06, 09:19 AM	Ok... a lvl one fighter has BAB +1, right? Disregarding Dex or Str bonus, that makes the chances 50/50. Not really +1 means that you hit with 9-20 and miss with 1-8. 60% hit and 40% miss... Nothing wrong with that. I think it is perfectly belivable that a 1st level fighter has more chance to hit than to miss It is ALWAYS easier to hit than to avoid
wrecan 07-26-06, 10:42 AM	The book doesn't make clear, but what would be around 50% in your opinion? The book says "about 50%", not "around." I think 55% is "about" 50%. Wouldn't you? I'm not sure what your complaint is. Why should a 1st level commoner with a 10 Strength have a 50% chance to hit and unarmored 1st level commoner with 10 Dexterity, rather than a 55% chance? You seem to assign the number 50 with some sort of cosmic or numerological significance and I don't see why you're doing that. The book says commoners have "about a 50% chance" of hitting one another. The math says they have exactly 55% chance, barring other-than-average Strength or Dexterity. Since 55% is "about a 50% chance," the book seems to accurately describe the rule. So what again is the problem here?
wrecan 07-26-06, 10:42 AM	If it really burns your britches, give all humanoids a natural armor bonus of +1
olshanski_home 07-26-06, 10:49 AM	This is indeed a horrible flaw. When I get home, I plan to burn my books and never play again.
pierow37 07-26-06, 10:51 AM	it is ALWAYS easier to attack than defend. Because the attacker knows what he is going to do,and the defender has no idea what move the attacker iwll pull. So it should be off by 10%.
LCD2YOU 07-26-06, 10:58 AM	There's only one flaw in the Core Rules? Wow, that's pretty good.
Omega the Powerfull 07-26-06, 11:08 AM	Is it possible that in AD&D 1st & 2nd Edition the base armor class for an unarmored character with no dexterity was AC 10. For simplicity sake perhaps they just kept 10 as the base AC when they tossed THAC0? Maybe for simplicity, but in the 1st and 2nd edition the logic of 50% used to make sense because the base AC was 10, and the armor bonus lowered that number instead raising it. :)
Omega the Powerfull 07-26-06, 11:12 AM	it is ALWAYS easier to attack than defend. Because the attacker knows what he is going to do,and the defender has no idea what move the attacker iwll pull. So it should be off by 10%. And why is that? Are you using a Foresight spell?
UltimateReality 07-26-06, 11:23 AM	Interesting discussion, with good arguments on both sides. Just out of curiosity I may have to run a game with the "exceeds" houserule, although I can't really see it changing the balance of gameplay much...5% either way, right?
babysamurai 07-26-06, 11:28 AM	I feel betrayed, bewildered. Wrong response?
MarkB 07-26-06, 12:10 PM	Maybe for simplicity, but in the 1st and 2nd edition the logic of 50% used to make sense because the base AC was 10, and the armor bonus lowered that number instead raising it. :) If you're going to use words like "logic" and "make sense" in regard to the old 2nd edition THAC0 system, I'm afraid I may just have to scream. :P
TarlSS 07-26-06, 12:22 PM	This is a stupid argument. This flaw isn't anything that would possibly be changed in any iteration of the rules. D&D is mechanics are not about realistic statistical accuracy, it is about streamlining book keeping. Counting DC from eleven would result from slowdowns simply because humans think in base 10 and not 11. Any possible combinations of arguments you could present would not mitigate this fact. NO need to make the game difficult to play for the sake of minute accuracy.
Tormsskull 07-26-06, 01:13 PM	I wouldn't go so far as calling it a flaw in the core rules, I'd say it was simplified. 10 is like an official number, so many things work off the number 10 it is not even funny. To make base AC 10 was easy to remember, and most importantly, people accept it without complaint because it is like a traditional number. You did raise some interesting points I hadn't thought about, but like other have said, I don't think anything needs to be changed. Also, I reccomend you ignore comments like this: This is a stupid argument. Some people never learned tactful speech.
LCD2YOU 07-26-06, 01:23 PM	I feel betrayed, bewildered. Wrong response?Only if you're wearing purple socks and have soup bowls with drawings of men who are, ahem, playing leap frog over each other at the bottom of the bowl.
Sulaco 07-26-06, 04:25 PM	The logic tells me that if an attacker has no bonus nor penalties, and the defender has no bonus nor penalties, the attacker should have 50% chance either for missing or hitting. The Long Version I can't be bothered to do a long version. The Short Version Why is it logical that an attacker has a 50% chance of hitting an unarmored opponent? How is 50% any more logical than 55% - or even 60%, 10% or 90%? It is not "logical," it just seems like it should be. To me the logical solution is that you have to beat the target AC, not match or beat it. The Succinct Version Who cares.
OravennasBrother 07-26-06, 05:03 PM	With all the truly idiotic design elements of 3.X it seems ludicrous to me that someone would complain about a 5% difference between their arbitrary "logical statistics" and the "actual statistics" of a D20 using base AC 10.
Omega the Powerfull 07-26-06, 10:59 PM	If you're going to use words like "logic" and "make sense" in regard to the old 2nd edition THAC0 system, I'm afraid I may just have to scream. :P I'm not trying to discuss the basics of 1st, 2nd or 3rd. edition rules. Because many of them doesn't make sense. But AC and BAB are the base of the D&D combat system, and by definiton on DMG they follow some wicked sort of logic. (known only by the drak and secret masters of WOTC) :plotting: Anyway, I'm just trying to make people think.
Sphyre 07-27-06, 07:41 AM	actually, it is still 50% 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 to miss 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 to hit Wait... do you have to meet, or excede? In all the games I've played, we always played excede.... The very very very very very very very very very absolutely first paragraph in the SRD: THE BASICS The Core Mechanic: Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task you do this: • Roll a d20. • Add any relevant modifiers. • Compare the result to a target number. If the result equals or exceeds the target number, your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, you fail. But yeah, exceeding does make sense too. I don't mind having a base 55% chance to hit anyway.
wrecan 07-27-06, 08:43 AM	But AC and BAB are the base of the D&D combat system, and by definiton on DMG they follow some wicked sort of logic. What are you nattering on about? Why is it more logical for the base to be 50% than 55%? That's the crux of your complaint and although people have raised this a few times, you haven't responded.
Omega the Powerfull 07-27-06, 09:02 AM	The book says "about 50%", not "around." I think 55% is "about" 50%. Wouldn't you? The book says commoners have "about a 50% chance" of hitting one another. The math says they have exactly 55% chance, barring other-than-average Strength or Dexterity. Since 55% is "about a 50% chance," the book seems to accurately describe the rule. So what again is the problem here? If About 50% for you is the same as 55%, then 95 % is about 50% too. Wanna see why? if 50% equals to 55% (5% difference), then 55% = 60%, then 60% = 65%, then 65% = 70%, then 70% = 75%, 75% =80%, 80% = 85%, 85% = 90%, 90% =95%.
wrecan 07-27-06, 09:31 AM	If About 50% for you is the same as 55%, then 95 % is about 50% too. Wanna see why? if 50% equals to 55% (5% difference), then 55% = 60%, then 60% = 65%, then 65% = 70%, then 70% = 75%, 75% =80%, 80% = 85%, 85% = 90%, 90% =95%. That is illogical. "About" does not mean "exactly." It means "near." Saying Baltimor is "near" Washington D.C. does not mean that Baltimore is "near" Los Angeles just because Baltimore is near a town that is near a town that is near a town that is near a town (etc.) that is near Los Angeles. If you think what I just quoted from you is an accurate use of the English language you are sorely sorely mistaken. 55% is about 50%, particularly when dealing in 20-sided dice that work only in 5% increments. 55% is only 1 increment from 50% and is thus "about" 50%. 95%, being 9 increments away (out of 20 increments) is not "about" 50%. Sheesh. That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on this boar dina long time. And I lurk the Uranium Sword thread!
Sulaco 07-27-06, 09:33 AM	If About 50% for you is the same as 55%, then 95 % is about 50% too. Wanna see why? if 50% equals to 55% (5% difference), then 55% = 60%, then 60% = 65%, then 65% = 70%, then 70% = 75%, 75% =80%, 80% = 85%, 85% = 90%, 90% =95%. Riiiiiight. :rolleyes:
Arganis 07-27-06, 09:34 AM	"About 50%" is also correct according to Price Is Right rules. And there is still nothing to see here.
Rivelstraz 07-27-06, 10:32 AM	Riiiiiight. :rolleyes: His logic is correct (by maths) Saying they are the same in numbers, implies a guaranteed equality. I don't mind 10 or 11, but 10 is the simple way.
wrecan 07-27-06, 10:40 AM	His logic is correct (by maths) Saying they are the same in numbers, implies a guaranteed equality. I don't mind 10 or 11, but 10 is the simple way. Except nobody said they are the same numbers and that isn't his argument anyway. The book states "about" Hi sargument is that is 55% is "about" 50% then 95% is also about 50%. And that is like saying "Baltimore is near Los Angeles".
Lafarallin 07-27-06, 10:46 AM	Except nobody said they are the same numbers and that isn't his argument anyway. The book states "about" Hi sargument is that is 55% is "about" 50% then 95% is also about 50%. And that is like saying "Baltimore is near Los Angeles". Honestly man....lay off the coffee. :)
Witchblade 07-27-06, 10:56 AM	Oh no! :weep:
wrecan 07-27-06, 11:00 AM	I can't help it. Stupidity pisses me off.
Another Gnome 07-27-06, 11:12 AM	His logic is correct (by maths) Saying they are the same in numbers, implies a guaranteed equality. What he's suggesting is that (A=B => C=D) <=> A=D. Let's make a truth table: A B C D A=B => C=D <=> A=D t t t t t t t t t t t t f t f f t f t t f t t f f f t t t f f t t t f f t f t t f t t t t t f t f f t f f f t f f t f t f t t t f f f f t t f f f t t t f t t f f f t t f f t f t t f t f t f t f f f f t f f f t t t t f f t t t t t f f f f t f t f f f t f f f t t f f t f f f f f t t t t t For a statement claiming equivalence to be true, each instance of equivalence (in bold above) must be true. Clearly that is not the case, therefore the statement is false.
Arganis 07-27-06, 11:38 AM	And that is like saying "Baltimore is near Los Angeles". Except that it is. Very close in fact.
wrecan 07-27-06, 11:45 AM	God save us from the pedants.
Arganis 07-27-06, 11:54 AM	God save us from the pedants. God is pedantic.
Omega the Powerfull 07-27-06, 12:13 PM	If you think what I just quoted from you is an accurate use of the English language you are sorely sorely mistaken. 1. I'm sorry for not being born in the USA, and furthermore in a country that speaks portuguese. Do you think you are better than me for that? 2. Talvez a gente devesse falar em português o que você acha? - Translation - maybe we should speak in portuguese what do you think? 3. My english is good enough for you to understand it, and complain. 55% is about 50%, particularly when dealing in 20-sided dice that work only in 5% increments. 55% is only 1 increment from 50% and is thus "about" 50%. 95%, being 9 increments away (out of 20 increments) is not "about" 50%. Sheesh. That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on this boar dina long time. And I lurk the Uranium Sword thread! Taking off your sarcasm and arrogance, I have a better argument than that. What is for you "more about" 50%? 50%? 51%? 52%? 53%? 54%? 55%? Think carefully... oh I can write in portuguese, or german if you want to understand better
revnk 07-27-06, 12:14 PM	Except that it is. Very close in fact. Unless your base unit is the micron. Nonetheless, Omega has inspired me: from now on, all dice rolls in my games will be rounded up to the nearest 20. Including damage.
wrecan 07-27-06, 12:45 PM	1. I'm sorry for not being born in the USA, and furthermore in a country that speaks portuguese. Do you think you are better than me for that? No, I think I am better than you at constructing logical arguments. Moreover, were I to try to make an argument that is not in my native language, I would not think I know better than native speakers the meaning of a word, such as "about". Nor would I be obnoxious when corrected about a word in a language that is not my first. maybe we should speak in portuguese what do you think? I think whining in any language would be an unproductive use of this thread. 3. My english is good enough for you to understand it, and complain. Yes, and shown to be wrong. Look, you're complaining about a rule being inaccurate. I showed you it is not inaccurate. So then you made an absurd argument. I showed it to be absurd. Now you're whining that you don't speak English that well. Fine. I accept your English skills are poor. That only means that the problem is not that the rule is flawed, but that your flawed understanding of English led you to erroneously interpret the rule. What is for you "more about" 50%? 50%? 51%? 52%? 53%? 54%? 55%? Think carefully... Yes, now you think carefully: When rolling a d20, which, converted to a % basis, only results in numbers divisible by 5, which of the numbers you specified is a possible roll of a d20 expressed in percentage terms? (hint: 50% and 55%) Now, having eliminated the choices not divisible by 5, which of those numbers is "about 50%". (Hint: the answer is the same) Also, another note on the English language. There is no such thing as "more about". Either something is "about 50%" or it's not. So to answer your loaded question, 51%, 52%, 53%, 54% and 55% are all "about 50%" in the context we are discussing. oh I can write in portuguese, or german if you want to understand betterSince we're discussing rules written in English, we should discuss it in English. It would help, however, if you didn't get offended by the fact that English isn't your first language.
Ghenesh 07-27-06, 12:45 PM	Cause it's easier to hit than to miss... and the exact proportion of that is 55% vs 45%. That was a bad joke, the thing is the guy has miscalculated, in a d20 you don't hit with a nat 1, so the whole rant is wrong, base AC 10 is stadistically correct.
Omega the Powerfull 07-27-06, 02:30 PM	No, I think I am better than you at constructing logical arguments. Moreover, were I to try to make an argument that is not in my native language, I would not think I know better than native speakers the meaning of a word, such as "about". Nor would I be obnoxious when corrected about a word in a language that is not my first. I think whining in any language would be an unproductive use of this thread. Yes, and shown to be wrong. Look: 1. to begin with you would make a favor for yourself just by not spending your precious time writing in this forum. 2. You haven't shown me to be wrong, the only thing you have shown me is that you have access to an english dictionary. Congratulations. Look, you're complaining about a rule being inaccurate. I showed you it is not inaccurate. So then you made an absurd argument. I showed it to be absurd. Now you're whining that you don't speak English that well. Fine. I accept your English skills are poor. That only means that the problem is not that the rule is flawed, but that your flawed understanding of English led you to erroneously interpret the rule. I write that in my "notebook of important facts" 1. The rules are inaccurate 2. My argument is absurd 3. My english is terrible, don't speak it anymore Now, having eliminated the choices not divisible by 5, which of those numbers is "about 50%". (Hint: the answer is the same) From longman dictionary -ABOUT- also round about - a little more or less than a particular number; amount or size = roughly And so 45% is the same either. Why the AC is not 12 then? Also, another note on the English language. There is no such thing as "more about". Either something is "about 50%" or it's not. So to answer your loaded question, 51%, 52%, 53%, 54% and 55% are all "about 50%" in the context we are discussing. Thank you again - My english is terrible is in my notebook already, but I've used "more about" so that you could understand what I'm trying to say. People with weaker intelect usually understand better with extreme examples. Since we're discussing rules written in English, we should discuss it in English. It would help, however, if you didn't get offended by the fact that English isn't your first language. I didn't, I've got offended by your arrogance
Arganis 07-27-06, 03:08 PM	Unless your base unit is the micron. Nonetheless, Omega has inspired me: from now on, all dice rolls in my games will be rounded up to the nearest 20. Including damage. On the contrary. The use of a smaller unit of measurement only amplifies a subjective perception of the objective relativity of all things. 4.40316e12 microns: Baltimore to San Fransisco (by car according to google maps) 1.49598e17 microns: Earth to the Sun 4.11532e22 microns: Sun to Alpha Centauri 9.46052e26 microns: Diameter of the Milky Way 5.67631e28 microns: Diameter of the Local Group 9.46052e29 microns: Diameter of the Virgo Supercluster 1.47584e33 microns: Estimated diameter of the Universe
wrecan 07-27-06, 03:08 PM	Look: 1. to begin with you would make a favor for yourself just by not spending your precious time writing in this forum. 2. You haven't shown me to be wrong, the only thing you have shown me is that you have access to an english dictionary. Congratulations. An english dictionary that shows you were using the word wrong. Can you even admit that you interpreted the word "about" incorrectly? 3. My english is terrible, don't speak it anymore I never told you to stop speaking or writing in English. Ever. I told you that you were using the word "about" incorrectly. You countered with a ridiculous argument and when I pointed out its ridiculousness you called me arrogant. You also started imagining I think you should speak or write in English. And so 45% is the same either. Why the AC is not 12 then? Why should it be? You're looking at it backwards. The sentence "about 50%" is used to describe the mathematical quation of hitting an AC 10. The AC 10 was not devised to fit the description. Were I to describe the brazilian flag as an emblem on a field that was "almost" teal, I would be correct. The Brazilian flag is on a green field and green is very similar to teal. Where you to then ask, "Well, why isn't the flag forest olive-colored? That's almost teal also," you would be making the same logical error. I've used "more about" so that you could understand what I'm trying to say.I understood what you were trying to say and I responded to that in my post. But since this discussion concerns the meaning of the word "about" I thought it important that you know how to use the word correctly. People with weaker intelect usually understand better with extreme examples. But only if the examples are themselves correct. You example was not and I explained why. I didn't, I've got offended by your arrogance Well, if people correcting your mistakes offends you as arrogant prepare yourself for a long life of being offended.
Parkxs 07-27-06, 03:35 PM	A commoner (with +0, BAB) trying to hit Erik (AC=10). He need a 10 or a 11 in the dice roll? This is the simple question here. Isn't? (I try write in english, so don't spend your time saying to me that i don't known do that)
Verelor 07-27-06, 03:48 PM	I humbly apoligize if it seems like I am trolling the thread, but I honestly don't understand why any of this matters very much.
Sulaco 07-27-06, 03:50 PM	His logic is correct (by maths) Saying they are the same in numbers, implies a guaranteed equality. I don't mind 10 or 11, but 10 is the simple way. No one said they are the same, except the cat trying to ridicule it. They were said to be "about" the same, as in "close enough not to get all bent out of shape over it." This thread really highlights that fact that there is, quite literally, nothing that people on these boards will not argue about. And not just argue but resort to name-calling, insults, pseudo-intellectualism, browbeating, hyperbole, and downright foolishness. I weep for our species. :nonono: PS - I post this fully aware that by doing so I am now opening myself up to that selfsame name-calling, insults, pseudo-intellectualism, browbeating, hyperbole, and downright foolishness.
wrecan 07-27-06, 04:05 PM	A commoner (with +0, BAB) trying to hit Erik (AC=10). He need a 10 or a 11 in the dice roll? This is the simple question here. Isn't? Yep. And the answer is "10".
Omega the Powerfull 07-27-06, 04:10 PM	Why should it be? You're looking at it backwards. The sentence "about 50%" is used to describe the mathematical quation of hitting an AC 10. The AC 10 was not devised to fit the description. Play as you like. OK?
Sulaco 07-27-06, 04:12 PM	I humbly apoligize if it seems like I am trolling the thread, but I honestly don't understand why any of this matters very much. You and me both, brother, you and me both.
Arganis 07-27-06, 04:17 PM	You and me both, bother, you and me both. As long as we're counting, count me here.
Solik 07-27-06, 04:49 PM	Who cares if it's pointless? It provoked some of the worst (and thusly most hilarious) logical arguments I've read since the Uranium Sword thread. Bravo Omega, you're the best of the worst!
Omega the Powerfull 07-27-06, 05:54 PM	Who cares if it's pointless? It provoked some of the worst (and thusly most hilarious) logical arguments I've read since the Uranium Sword thread. Bravo Omega, you're the best of the worst! I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you very much. ;) But my first goal was reached. More than 1000 people, actually 1,152 last time I've cheked, have read this topic and stopped to think on it - I hope. :invasion: And I still have some polemic topics to discuss on. Wait for more....
WizO_Cat 07-27-06, 06:09 PM	Please keep in mind that Trolling is against the Code of Conduct. It can lead to Official Warns that can result in being banned from the boards.