Warlord: STR-primary, not so much...

[Obryn]

That +1 isn't 5% all of the time, though. It can be higher or lower depending upon the AC of your target.

Hawkeye

Erm... unless you only hit on a natural 20 or only miss on a natural 1, a +1 on a d20 is always a 5% change in probability. These are rare corner-cases in 4e, though.

-O

 

[keterys]

Depends on how you think about it. If you need an 11 to hit (50% chance), then a +1 to hit increases your number of successes by 10%. It also increases your damage by some amount beyond that.

I actually do think that is the more correct way to think about it.

 

[Nail]

Depends on how you think about it. If you need an 11 to hit (50% chance), then a +1 to hit increases your number of successes by 10%. It also increases your damage by some amount beyond that.

I actually do think that is the more correct way to think about it.

I agree; although I think most people would "notice" it as "~10% fewer failures", since people notice failures more than successes.

 

[Hawkeye]

I never said that - and it's not a very sensical statement. Do I think that a 16 Str Warlord is almost always better than a 14 Str Warlord? Yes. Do I think that a 16 Str warlord is twice as effective? Eh, probably not.

So which is meant by the 100% better? Better in 100% of situations or double effect?

Ask cmbarona. He is the one using the 100% figure. You seem to be agreeing with him.

Hawkeye

 

[Hawkeye]

Gotcha. Doable, but I wouldn't say optimal.

Who says every character has to be optimal, though? Isn't it more about playing a character that is fun to the player?

Hawkeye

 

[Hawkeye]

Erm... unless you only hit on a natural 20 or only miss on a natural 1, a +1 on a d20 is always a 5% change in probability. These are rare corner-cases in 4e, though.

-O

According to the Monster Manual, you need to hit AC 48 to hit Orcus. An extra +1 from str is a little more than a 2% increase in chance to hit, mathematically speaking. It's only 5% if your opponent's actual AC is 20.

Hawkeye

 

[keterys]

Ask cmbarona. He is the one using the 100% figure. You seem to be agreeing with him.

Hawkeye

I'm just highlighting this statement - you're trying to attribute me as making a statement I didn't make, agreeing with someone I didn't respond to, and otherwise not logically supporting your position.

According to the Monster Manual, you need to hit AC 48 to hit Orcus. An extra +1 from str is a little more than a 2% increase in chance to hit, mathematically speaking. It's only 5% if your opponent's actual AC is 20.

This is mathematically completely wrong - d20 math is actually very simple, so you may want to take a step back and consider that more carefully.

Who says every character has to be optimal, though? Isn't it more about playing a character that is fun to the player?

Absolutely - the warlords with 18 (after race) have appeared to have the most fun to me, while the 14 appeared to have the least fun, by far. The 16 is often upset at missing, but not to nearly the extent.

 

[cmbarona]

Ask cmbarona. He is the one using the 100% figure. You seem to be agreeing with him.

Hawkeye

Excuse me? Perhaps I've been busy with other stuff and simply forgot or overlooked a previous post. But as a statistically trained psychologist, I wholeheartedly object to your assertion that I brought up 100% of anything as a figure. Please either correct me or correct your post.

 

[cmbarona]

Who says every character has to be optimal, though? Isn't it more about playing a character that is fun to the player?

Hawkeye

If you're actually posing the question, I'm not saying every character has to be optimal. And yes, D&D is about fun. But I wasn't discussing fun just then. I was addressing an optimization issue, which is a completely different topic in my mind than fun. In fact, I was agreeing with those who say a lower-strength Warlord can mathematically work out, so please cut down the hostility.

 

[Hawkeye]

Excuse me? Perhaps I've been busy with other stuff and simply forgot or overlooked a previous post. But as a statistically trained psychologist, I wholeheartedly object to your assertion that I brought up 100% of anything as a figure. Please either correct me or correct your post.

Sorry, my apologies. I was getting you confused with Sadistic fishing.

"Statistically trained psychologist?" I know that Psychology loves to use statistics in their studies, like most other sciences, but didn't know they used it in their actual treatment. Is that something new? Whatever happened to talking to your patients?

"Mister Jones, I have managed to cure your bipolar disorder with a complex statistical analysis. Have a nice day."

I wonder if that would work for my patients?

"Mister Johnson, I have used a complex statistical analysis to stop your heart attack. You are free to go. That chest pain should clear up soon."



Hawkeye