- 10,502
- 11,574
This comes form this thread, but I thought I would make a thread here to have a more official debate about the proposal.
To explain what this is about: There are a few feats we accept, despite the fact one could think by the calc stacking page that we don't.
The good example for this would be feats were we use the a calculated parameter, since it's the same instance.
Say we, for example, calculate the speed of a bullet, by comparing its movement to lightning.
If then that very same bullet is 3 meters further behind dodged by a character, then we would allow using the calculated speed of the bullet to calculate the dodging speed.
Why? Because the speed can't have changed.
It's essentially for that same reason we allow pixel scaling over multiple steps: The size objects doesn't really change.
And that's essentially what this revision is about. If we know that some calculated parameter can't possibly have changed, using it in further calculation is probably ok.
That of course isn't supposed to mean that we can use a characters calculated dodging speed, to calc the speed of another character cause "he's serious so he would go top speed" or anything like that.
For clarification I think it's easiest if I just post my proposal.
My propsal is to replace the "Note that pixel scaling over several steps..." part of the Calc Stacking page with something like:
"However, parameters that are calculated in a first calculation can be accepted for use in a second calculation, if and only if they can not have changed between them. To provide a few examples:
I would really like opinions on this, as calc stacking is a very delicate issue with extensive consequences.
To explain what this is about: There are a few feats we accept, despite the fact one could think by the calc stacking page that we don't.
The good example for this would be feats were we use the a calculated parameter, since it's the same instance.
Say we, for example, calculate the speed of a bullet, by comparing its movement to lightning.
If then that very same bullet is 3 meters further behind dodged by a character, then we would allow using the calculated speed of the bullet to calculate the dodging speed.
Why? Because the speed can't have changed.
It's essentially for that same reason we allow pixel scaling over multiple steps: The size objects doesn't really change.
And that's essentially what this revision is about. If we know that some calculated parameter can't possibly have changed, using it in further calculation is probably ok.
That of course isn't supposed to mean that we can use a characters calculated dodging speed, to calc the speed of another character cause "he's serious so he would go top speed" or anything like that.
For clarification I think it's easiest if I just post my proposal.
My propsal is to replace the "Note that pixel scaling over several steps..." part of the Calc Stacking page with something like:
"However, parameters that are calculated in a first calculation can be accepted for use in a second calculation, if and only if they can not have changed between them. To provide a few examples:
- Pixel scaling over several steps is permitted, as long as the size of the scaled objects usually stays constant.
- Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted, as long as the projectile wouldn't have changed its speed mid flight.
- Using a reliable stated timeframe and reliably stated speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)
- Multipliers can be used under the conditions lined out on the multiplier page.
- Using speed of characters or attacks calculated at other instances can't be used, as characters and attacks can vary in speed. This is the case regardless of whether the character is seriously trying to do his best or anything similar.
I would really like opinions on this, as calc stacking is a very delicate issue with extensive consequences.
