Ability scores - How intrinsic are they to D&D?

[Dannyalcatraz]

The D&D rules preclude you from attacking with ranged weapons in melee combat!

Which is why I use them before the foe closes to melee range.

IME, it is the rare combat in which the sides start so close that I can't get one successful ranged attack in with a high-Dex PC.

What does high dex fighter plan to do; shift every round in order to gain ranged attacks without suffering opportunity attacks?

No. Get one in at range, drop & draw. Like I said.

IME, the vast majority of encounters begin between 25 and 50 feet.

That is ample range for getting in a good shot or 2 which may make the difference.

Yes, please throw a 1d3 rock at my greatsword wielding fighter.

Assuming we're still talking about a Str18 Dex18 fighter vs a Str18 Dex3 Fighter with identical HP and DPR, that extra 1d3 could be the difference in victory since its a "free" attack before they close to melee. Since he has gotten extra damage in, he's going to win if he wins initiative (highly probable), and he's just increased the odds that he'll win if he loses initiative.

To clarify: if the 2 warriors start off with DPR of 9 and 90 HP, the fight will be over on the 10th round of combat. Assuming non-simultaneous initiative, the one who went first wins unless one has a way to get a short term boost in DPR.

If, OTOH, the 2 warriors start off with DPR 9 and 92HP, the fight will be over in the 11th round of combat, with the one winning initiative winning just like the previous scenario. If, however, there was one round of closing to melee in which one took 1d3 HP of damage from a ranged attack, possibly ending the combat in the 10th round, even if he lost initiative.

This is D&D. While there are certainly situations where difficult terrain might be a concern, it is not the norm. If you kick a chair in my path, on my turn I'll just walk around it. Even when difficult terrain is a concern, it typically reduces movement speed rather than requiring dexterity checks. What is your fighter trying to do, lure mine out onto a clothesline?

You go around, you give me a chance to put distance between you and me, and I have the advantage at range. You're going to face flying cutlery from the table, more blinding projectiles, etc. And if I get enough range, my dedicated throwing daggers come back into play.

As for difficult terrain...
"You want me dead, senor? Then come, fight me along the parapet, you clumsy oaf! Oh yes...don't look down..."

And on a related note, how the heck is you fighter running around like a cinematic energizer bunny on speed without provoking opportunity attacks from my fighter?

If I suspect the only advantage my PC has is high-Dex- we are otherwise evenly matched- I'm going to do everything I can to maximize the time it takes you to close to melee. I'll make you take a longer path. I'll make you go through a field of marbles, caltrops or tanglefoot bags. (My high-Dex PCs always have a way to control the battlespace. Always.)

And the longer you take to close, the more the odds shift inexorably in my favor.

You charge? I put an obstacle in your path you have to avoid or otherwise deal with, either preventing your straight line approach or making you have to make a Dex check.

Because let me tell you, if you're provoking from me every round to kick chairs and throw rocks at me, I'm pretty sure my tactic of taking an attacks every round will triumph.

Hope you don't fall prone. Oh wait...I want you to fall prone.!

Even if he did, a 1 round blinding favors me.

That's ridiculous on its face.

If you lost initiative- as you probably have- and you get blinded, you're probably not landing a blow. In addition, I'll get a +10% chance of hitting you since your AC will be worse (which is a statistical increase in DPR) and you can bet my PC won't be in front of you when your eyesight clears. I could be behind you, or have used my movement to move away again (you can't take AoOs while blind), forcing Sir Stumblebum to have to close again.

I already admitted that the high dexterity fighter has the advantage with regard to initiative. However, let's assume for a moment that the initiative roll is a life-or-death throw. You win the roll, my character dies; I win the roll, your character dies. Would you really be willing to risk the life of a beloved character on a single die roll like that? Even if I were playing the high dex fighter, I certainly wouldn't take those odds because there's too much chance associated with those rolls. It happens all too often that a player rolls for a "sure thing" and is shocked to see a natural 1 or 2, and this is far from a sure thing.

The high-Dex Ftr has something like 3-1 or 4-1 chance of winning the roll over the low-Dex Ftr. I'd take that- that's better odds of victory than a typical "evenly matched" encounter.

 

[Janx]

I already admitted that the high dexterity fighter has the advantage with regard to initiative. However, let's assume for a moment that the initiative roll is a life-or-death throw. You win the roll, my character dies; I win the roll, your character dies. Would you really be willing to risk the life of a beloved character on a single die roll like that? Even if I were playing the high dex fighter, I certainly wouldn't take those odds because there's too much chance associated with those rolls. It happens all too often that a player rolls for a "sure thing" and is shocked to see a natural 1 or 2, and this is far from a sure thing.

In any case our experiences appear to be very different, because we don't seem to to see eye-to-eye and I rather doubt at this point that we will.

I'm a bit perplexed as to how this is even a dispute.

2 fighters with same stats except one has good dex and one has bad.

Statistically, good dex will win init more often, and winning init wins the fight more often based on average damage math. In short, just by statistics, the low dex fighter has odds against him.

"Would you really be willing to risk the life of a beloved character on a single die roll like that? "

If you play D&D, apparently the answer is Yes. Because that's how it works.
First strike advantage in D&D is actually minimized, compared to games where damage results in penalties (like worsening BAB).

But in a straight fight were 2 dudes do the same damage to the same HP pool, yeah, it's pretty obvious.

And while Danny's examples were cinematic, the high-DEX PC is going to endeavor to use situations where he can attack, and the enemy cannot. Range combat before the melee fits the bill. So if it is possible, the high-Dex PC should do it.*

Though both PCs have a chance of hitting (just as both PCs have a chance of winning init), statistically, the low-Dex PC will miss with range attacks and the high Dex PC will hit with range attacks.

Pretty much the Low-Dex PC is going to hope he rolls high for damage and attacks and that the high-DEX PC gets unlucky. Because statistics does not favor him, he will need luck.


*in designing some games, for bruiser units vs. range units, I have had to factor how many rounds before the tank could close to the range unit in terms of damage inflicted, and the relative life span of both, and from their, their point cost in the game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm a bit perplexed as to how this is even a dispute.

2 fighters with same stats except one has good dex and one has bad.

Statistically, good dex will win init more often, and winning init wins the fight more often based on average damage math. In short, just by statistics, the low dex fighter has odds against him.

"Would you really be willing to risk the life of a beloved character on a single die roll like that? "

If you play D&D, apparently the answer is Yes. Because that's how it works.
First strike advantage in D&D is actually minimized, compared to games where damage results in penalties (like worsening BAB).

But in a straight fight were 2 dudes do the same damage to the same HP pool, yeah, it's pretty obvious.

And while Danny's examples were cinematic, the high-DEX PC is going to endeavor to use situations where he can attack, and the enemy cannot. Range combat before the melee fits the bill. So if it is possible, the high-Dex PC should do it.*

Though both PCs have a chance of hitting (just as both PCs have a chance of winning init), statistically, the low-Dex PC will miss with range attacks and the high Dex PC will hit with range attacks.

Pretty much the Low-Dex PC is going to hope he rolls high for damage and attacks and that the high-DEX PC gets unlucky. Because statistics does not favor him, he will need luck.


*in designing some games, for bruiser units vs. range units, I have had to factor how many rounds before the tank could close to the range unit in terms of damage inflicted, and the relative life span of both, and from their, their point cost in the game.

Even though the odds favor the high dex fighter, chance plays too large a role when making a single roll. Over an infinite number of rolls, yes, high dex will win initiative significantly more often than low dex. But given only one roll, it's much harder to say whether or not that will be the case in this specific instance. If low dex fighter does win initiative, it isn't as though high dex can call for a mulligan and retry. Low dex gets first strike and all advantages thereof and (given same DPR and hp) high dex is probably dead.

Dexterity is just one example of how ability scores fail to model the real world, and I still believe that the bonuses aren't realistic. If the clumsiest man in the world goes up against the most dexterous in melee combat, given that everything else is the same, it should be a shutout but it isn't. In comparison, the game isn't bad about Strength; if an 18 Str fighter faces off against a 3 Str fighter there's virtually no chance of the low strength fighter winning.

In any case, we've strayed rather far from my original point which wasn't that the high dex fighter doesn't have an advantage over the low dex fighter. He does and I've admitted that (though I don't believe the advantage to be sufficient). It was that ability scores, in their current and past forms, don't model reality very well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But given only one roll, it's much harder to say whether or not that will be the case in this specific instance.

You don't put much faith in statistics, do you?

Possible modified rolls for the Dex3 guy: 1,1,1,1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16.

Possible modified rolls for the Dex18 guy: 5*,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24.

50% of Dex3 Ftr's possible results are a 6 or lower, meaning that 50% of the time, the Dex18 Ftr at least ties him for initiative by rolling a 2. If Dex18 Ftr rolls a 10- fractionally less than a statistically average roll- he has an 85% chance of tying or winning initiative. Dex18 Ftr has a 40% chance of rolling so high he cannot lose initiative.

Those are excellent odds for Dex18 Ftr.





* If a rolled 1 cannot be modified, this 5 is a 1.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You don't put much faith in statistics, do you?

Possible modified rolls for the Dex3 guy: 1,1,1,1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16.

Possible modified rolls for the Dex18 guy: 5*,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24.

50% of Dex3 Ftr's possible results are a 6 or lower, meaning that 50% of the time, the Dex18 Ftr at least ties him for initiative by rolling a 2. If Dex18 Ftr rolls a 10- fractionally less than a statistically average roll- he has an 85% chance of tying or winning initiative. Dex18 Ftr has a 40% chance of rolling so high he cannot lose initiative.

Those are excellent odds for Dex18 Ftr.





* If a rolled 1 cannot be modified, this 5 is a 1.

Do the dice always provide your table with the statistically likely answer? They don't at mine. I can't tell you the number of times that something hinged on a 5% chance but occurred nevertheless.

Am I saying that a 5% chance is likelier than a 50% chance for some weird reason? Of course not. However, I have learned to have back-up plans even if "nothing could possibly go wrong" (95% success), and to try even if "I have virtually no chance of success" (5%), because the dice can and will surprise you.

Over a long string of rolls it is possible to statistically predict how the initiative dice will roll. That is no the case, however, for a single roll. Either die could come up as any number between 1 and 20. The modifiers will certainly still swing the odds one way or the other, but the odds of high dex rolling a natural 1 and low dex rolling a natural 20 is just as likely as any of the other possible combinations.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that high dex is likelier to win initiative, but you keep talking as though it's safe to assume it is guaranteed. It isn't.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In 34 years of gaming, I have personally had a PC die on the basis of failing rolls in which he had a series of 95-99% odds of succeeding. I had another one succeed on a sequence of rolls in which she had a 99% chance of failing each roll. According to the mathematician I game with, in each case, I had essentially beaten odds longer than those for the Texas Lottery.

(I'd much rather have had the millions, but what are you going to do?)

So I'm well aware what randomization can do.

However, if the question is would I take those odds as predicted in the Dex18 vs Dex3 battle? The answer is an unequivocal "Yes."

Why? Because I trust what the odds tell me. Its the fundamental logic behind gambling.* If I'm playing Texas Hold 'Em with a hand that my opponent can only beat if the last Queen in the deck hits The River, and I can win the final pot of the night by going all-in, I'm going all-in.

Its a risk, but it's a calculated risk.

Seriously, the odds for the Dex18 fighter winning are better than the odds of a new restaurant lasting a year here in the Dallas/FW Metroplex. Yet people open new restaurants every year.



* and playing the stock market, starting a new business, etc.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In 20 or so years of game I've had numerous characters die due to 0.0025-5% odds. I've also had a few that succeeded based on a 5% chance.

If I have a beloved character, and no chance of resurrection, I wouldn't chance even a 0.0025% chance (the same odds as rolling two natural 1s in a row) that he might die, if I could help it. It's why, when my characters are forced to climb, I always use a safety line (if possible). It isn't worth the risk if there's any another option.

In my experience, I will roll numerous times for unlikely but deadly effects over the course of a campaign, but rarely if ever for unlikely but beneficial effects. Raise dead often isn't an option in our campaigns, so it only takes a single bad roll or two to be back to rolling up a new character.

It's like your poker example. Great poker players win the game by playing the odds and winning more hands than they lose. Now imagine if you are booted from the table the first time you lose a hand. Winning by playing the odds just became a lot harder, didn't it? That's a more apropo example of this situation, since we're talking life or death. Throw enough of those kinds of rolls in a single campaign, and eventually, the odds aren't so bad that one of them will get you. I know from experience.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If I have a beloved character, and no chance of resurrection, I wouldn't chance even a 0.0025% chance (the same odds as rolling two natural 1s in a row) that he might die, if I could help it.

The aforementioned PC I lost? In a 2Ed DarkSun campaign, he had to roll a sequence of three 1's on percentile and four 1s on D20s covering the effects of 2 spells that hit him to die irrevocably. (Not that anyone in the party could have raised him...)

The other PC one-shotted a Lich with a Mace of Disruption on a plane favorable to preserving Unlife (involving a few Nat20s) and I asked if her deity took notice. He had a 1% chance of noticing- he did. He then had a 1% chance of appearing and giving her a special reward- he did.

Yes, the dice may give you wonky results from time to time, but statistics show us that this is rare.

Great poker players win the game by playing the odds and winning more hands than they lose. Now imagine if you are booted from the table the first time you lose a hand. Winning by playing the odds just became a lot harder, didn't it?

I've seen great poker players get booted from the WSOP because their opponent drew the one card in the deck that could beat them. They come back for the next event.

I've been burned AND blessed by dice. I don't let the statistical anomalies get to me.

If you were to be booted after the first lost hand, then you have even MORE incentive to play the odds. That's what they call "playing tight". You play the odds strictly, and you DON'T do too many bluffs.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've seen great poker players get booted from the WSOP because their opponent drew the one card in the deck that could beat them. They come back for the next event.

I've been burned AND blessed by dice. I don't let the statistical anomalies get to me.

Heh? Where did I say or imply that someone who gets burned by the dice should quit playing?

I tend to roll natural 20s when the consequences are inconsequential, and natural 1s when the situation is life or death. I'm unluckier than most, yet I still had fun at game last night. I just do my best to ensure that my character has a safety net, because I know it's not a matter of if, but rather when, the dice will screw me. That doesn't mean that I don't take life-and-death risks with my characters either, but rather that when I do, it's for something important. I don't take chances frivolously.

It doesn't follow from my argument, that ability scores aren't a good simulation, that I think people shouldn't play D&D. I am saying that I think replacing ability scores with something better is viable, and that even if they are retained ability scores have a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Heh? Where did I say or imply that someone who gets burned by the dice should quit playing?

You didn't. But you have clearly stated that you distrust statistics because of the outlier results to the point that even when odds are heavily in your favor, you don't play like they are.

Pro poker players aren't like that. They get a "bad beat" and they will gripe about it, but given the same situation, they would not let that change their playstyle.

That doesn't mean that I don't take life-and-death risks with my characters either, but rather that when I do, it's for something important. I don't take chances frivolously.

The odds in the two fighter duel are not frivolous. The Dex18 PC has a 40% chance of an unbeatable roll, and 90% of his modified roll results beat 50% of the Dex3 fighter's possible outcomes. IOW, to win, the Dex3 fighter has to roll significantly better than the statistical average just to have a chance at winning, while the Dex18 guy can roll crappy and still win most of the time.

The odds in this favor the Dex18 guy more than the typical D&D encounter.

If odds like that popped up on a sporting event, you wouldn't get action in Vegas.