D&D 4E 4E Races, Post-Essentials: Flexibility, You Say?

[ourchair]

Ummmmm, if you're not getting a +10 in that situation there's something seriously wrong. A level 5 fighter with 18 STR, a +3 prof weapon, and Expertise is ALREADY at +9, and almost surely has a +1 weapon for +10 BEFORE any situational bonuses. The same goes for an 18 DEX rogue. Even assuming you DON'T take Expertise (you don't really need it at this point) you're talking a baseline +9 for fighters and rogues, and a baseline +8 for other weapon users with EITHER a +3 weapon OR Expertise. So throw in a -2 to enemy defenses and it would be pretty hard to NOT have a +10 with most any weapon using character. Toss in CA from flanking as a possibility and you're way there.

I meant 10 or more in situational bonuses on top of the existing attack bonus. I thought that was obvious. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Ardulac]

I know it sounds, ridiculous, but if your players are on good terms with their dice, then the difference between a monster with AC 21 and AC 22 is almost negligible. My group consists mostly of players who are really good at rolling, so I don't see what the big deal is over that +1 to hit.

Probabilities do not work that way. You can't be good or bad at rolling random numbers unless you are cheating.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Probabilities do not work that way. You can't be good or bad at rolling random numbers unless you are cheating.

But probabilities also don´t decide too much on small samples. The variance is so great, that a +1 bonus is very negligible.

Luck has more to do with it in normal encounters, and even in large encounters, it is usually just one more hit.

 

[JohnSnow]

Ummmmm, if you're not getting a +10 in that situation there's something seriously wrong. A level 5 fighter with 18 STR, a +3 prof weapon, and Expertise is ALREADY at +9, and almost surely has a +1 weapon for +10 BEFORE any situational bonuses. The same goes for an 18 DEX rogue. Even assuming you DON'T take Expertise (you don't really need it at this point) you're talking a baseline +9 for fighters and rogues, and a baseline +8 for other weapon users with EITHER a +3 weapon OR Expertise.

I hate to break it to you, but unless you didn't mean to use a Level 5 fighter, your math is actually low.

STR 18 (+4) + Proficiency (+3) + Weapon Talent (+1) + 1/2 Level (+2) = +10

And that's without Weapon Expertise! Or a magic weapon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, just because you have a small population doesn't mean the probabilities are any less significant. There will be a higher variance, but even if the average PC only makes say 7 to-hit rolls on average per encounter that's a good number of rolls over the course of the character's lifetime. You only have to fail to beat an encounter by one hit one time for it to make a big difference in the outcome.

Anyway, it isn't about the 'single +1', it is about the fact that you need a LOT of little +1s here and there to add up to your good chance of hitting. Losing each one hurts. Gaining an extra one helps. Effectively dwarves got the equivalent of a free feat (and a good one) if they are playing a fighter. It IS non-trivial.

I still want someone to tell me why this whole change is 'adding flexibility'. I don't see that. It is just shuffling around which race is best at what. The EXACT same dynamics as before will drive players choices of race and class. The choices they end up with may be different, but how is that a better game? If players were already heavily influenced to play the best combinations then they will be still. If they were NOT heavily influenced to play the best combinations then the whole thing is irrelevant and they'll be just as happy with the old way as the new way.

The ONLY argument I've seen that really has any potential weight at all here is the one about games with heavily restricted choices of race. This is rather a corner case IMHO. It also isn't really entirely clear to me that even then the situation is really better with the new rule. It will heavily depend on exactly what races are and aren't allowed. I can see it being nice if you were excluding every race that was good at class X before and now a couple of them are better for that class, OK you may see more of that class show up. Remember though, every game has only so many PCs and all of them have a race and class. The actual distribution of races at the table is likely to have little to do with what is potentially best mechanically unless you have a lot of really serious optimizers, who are going to pick specific things regardless of what you do since something is ALWAYS best (at least in their view).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I hate to break it to you, but unless you didn't mean to use a Level 5 fighter, your math is actually low.

STR 18 (+4) + Proficiency (+3) + Weapon Talent (+1) + 1/2 Level (+2) = +10

And that's without Weapon Expertise! Or a magic weapon.

Eh, it was late, I probably missed something. I think I at least didn't understand what he was saying anyway (+10 situational bonuses is what he was saying they were going for). I have to agree with him, at level 5 it is pretty tough to get a +10 situational bonus! Doable I guess but I think you'd really have to optimize to get there.

 

[Sunseeker]

Probabilities do not work that way. You can't be good or bad at rolling random numbers unless you are cheating.

To be technically correct, dice are horrible probability generators. While a computer system has an equal chance in an "if-then" situation to produce any probable value, dice have to take the force of the roll, spin, table shape, objects and so forth into account.

So yes, technically you can be good at rolling a die, because as a misshapen spheroid it is subject to all the laws of the physical world for it to be able to randomly generate a number.

 

[AngryMojo]

So yes, technically you can be good at rolling a die, because as a misshapen spheroid it is subject to all the laws of the physical world for it to be able to randomly generate a number.

I saw a video on the History Channel once about a group of guys who got so good at throwing dice, they managed to rig craps tables out of nothing but skill. It's crazy hard, but possible.

As to the oblong dice, if you just make every player use 5d20's and rotate them, you've effectively nullified the stacked odds on dice rolling.

 

[ourchair]

Probabilities do not work that way. You can't be good or bad at rolling random numbers unless you are cheating.

I know.

Like I already pointed out, it is a faintly ridiculous assertion on my part.

Still, from my experience I've seen players spend entire months rolling with good consistency and I've seen players entire months astonishingly bad.

As for the ones who roll consistently high? Their dice gets confiscated and subjected to probability smashers.

 

[Ardulac]

But probabilities also don´t decide too much on small samples. The variance is so great, that a +1 bonus is very negligible.

Luck has more to do with it in normal encounters, and even in large encounters, it is usually just one more hit.

An individual combat is a small sample, but a campaign is a huge sample. Small samples are hard to predict results for in general, but that doesn't mean the 1 point difference is somehow less important. Over the course of a campaign, some combats are going to include several rolls that would have hit with a +1, some will have one, and many encounters it won't matter at all. It's also worth noting that this applies to each character in the group, so if everyone takes 16s instead of 18s or whatever then this will come up much more often.

It's not the end of the world either way, but it would be nice if the less stat-oriented players would stop trying to make it sound like the +1 does nothing at all. You don't have to argue against math/statistics/reality in order to justify the way you play (in this case you = people who have more fun without min/maxing).