Unearthed Arcana WOTC still can't get the backgrounds right in the new FR book.

[Maxperson]

I think you are using two different measures of effectiveness.

Yes and no. The +1 won't mean that much with regard to hitting and damage over the long term of the campaign, so it's not all that effective on it's own, but it's also even less effective than that when you add in all the feats, class abilities, spells, etc. that go into a combat. Those are two different measures of effectiveness, but they are complementary with one another.

 

[ECMO3]

So first, he said that as a bonus to you. The reality is that it would be 1% or less effective. Your math doesn't change that, either. Your math is purely about +1 damage, when the combat pillar includes all class abilities, racial abilities useful in combat, magic items, feats, etc. So your 18 or 28 percent or whatever doesn't equate to effectiveness in combat.

No it can actually be a lot more than that.

Yep. Next to nothing. The PC would likely be dead before he killed a goblin 2 points at a hit.

Actually a PC with a 16 AC, 10hps +3 attack and 2 damage who wins initiative has 46% chance of beating that 7hps Goblin.

At +2 attack and 1 damage that drops to 8%.

It is 35% and 3% respectively if the PC loses initiative.

Add in a 1st level ability like second wind or shield spell or a host of other things and the 2 DPR PC is going to win most of the time, while the 1 damage PC almost never will!

1) Where are they getting an 18 strength from? +2 from background and the extra +1 from where? 3) How are the 17 strength guys getting a 17 strength with Acolyte not providing a strength increase?

Like I said, if you don't like the numbers tell what you want me to use as long as it is reflective of a +1 equivalent lower in strength and Constitution.

I will warn you though the difference is bigger at 16 and 15 Strength than it is at 18 and 17 Strength.

2) Why are you giving the 18 strength group Savage Attacker and not the 17 strength guys?

Because they have the Soldier background which gives them that feat and the 17 strength guys don't.

Just let me know how you want me to do it. 4 fighters with a "good" background that provides ASIs in Strength and Constitution as compared to 4 fighters with a "bad" background that doesn't provide those things but which according to you has almost no significant difference mechanically.

We can do Farmer for the high Strength guys if you would rather that. Farmer and Soldier are the only 2 WOTC backgrounds that have Strength and Constitution though.

 

[Maxperson]

No it can actually be a lot more than that.

Unless you're suggesting that the PC is never, ever using anything else to attack except for his stat bonus, it will never be more than that. It will always pale in comparison to everything else the PC has to bring to bear.

Actually a PC with a 16 AC, 10hps +3 attack and 2 damage who wins initiative has 46% chance of beating that 7hps Goblin.

At +2 attack and 1 damage that drops to 8%.

It is 35% and 3% respectively if the PC loses initiative.

Add in a 1st level ability like second wind or shield spell or a host of other things and the 2 DPR PC is going to win most of the time, while the 1 damage PC almost never will!

Thanks for proving my point. The PC is probably going to lose whether he wins initiative or not, unless he uses his other abilities to increase his effectiveness.

Because they have the Soldier background which gives them that feat and the 17 strength guys don't.

Right. You're cherry picking an advantage other than the strength bonus for the guys you want to be better.

Just let me know how you want me to do it. 4 fighters with a "good" background that provides ASIs in Strength and Constitution as compared to 4 fighters with a "bad" background that doesn't provide those things but which according to you has almost no significant difference mechanically. We can do Farmer for the high Strength guys if you would rather do that.

You know I'm talking about the stat bonus. Not feats.

 

[ECMO3]

I think you only should be replacing 1 of the original 4 fighters to see the true effect of a single pc taking 1 lower str and con mod.

No. Supposedly it is a "nearly meaningless" difference, "you won't be able to notice it" and "it only affects 1 in 20 rolls"

You is the player, not the party and if we want it to affect 1 in 20 rolls we need all the players in a group to have this "meaningless" disadvantage .... otherwise it is affecting far less than 1 in 20 rolls.

 

[ECMO3]

Thanks for proving my point. The PC is probably going to lose whether he wins initiative or not, unless he uses his other abilities to increase his effectiveness.

There is a big difference in losing 46% of the time and losing 91% of the time.

Right. You're cherry picking an advantage other than the strength bonus for the guys you want to be better.

There are only 2 backgrounds that have Strength and Constitution ... you pick one of them!

You know I'm talking about the stat bonus. Not feats.

The feats are part of the background, moreover they are "thematic" more thematic than the ASIs generally.

Heck if you want I will do it with no feats at all. Not realistic, but it will still be quite different even if we pretend backgrounds don't lock you into a feat.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. Supposedly it is a "nearly meaningless" difference, "you won't be able to notice it" and "it only affects 1 in 20 rolls"

The test needs to be set up fairly and properly to demonstrate your point.

You is the player, not the party and if we want it to affect 1 in 20 rolls we need all the players in a group to have this "meaningless" disadvantage .... otherwise it is only affecting far less than 1 in 20 rolls.

I think that kind of proves my point…

 

[FrogReaver]

There are only 2 backgrounds that have Strength and Constitution ... you pick one of them!




The feats are part of the background, moreover they are "thematic" more thematic than the ASIs generally.

Heck if you want I will do it with no feats at all. Not realistic, but it will still be quite different even if we pretend backgrounds don't lock you into a feat.

Which won’t prove your claim that 1 mod is that important…

It’s more realistic perhaps, but doesn’t align with your claim.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a big difference in losing 46% of the time and losing 91% of the time.

Not when most combats have you winning 99% of the time. Having a better stat mod might up that to 99.5%.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Not when most combats have you winning 99% of the time. Having a better stat mod might up that to 99.5%.

by this logic none of the rules matter and we might as well just throw all the math out

 

[ECMO3]

The test needs to be set up fairly and properly to demonstrate your point.

I think that kind of proves my point…

Ok then lets go with a single player. That is what I used in my original example that was supposedly a "corner case"

We are evaluating the effect a low stat has on a player, if we are testing this theory in a party where those results are dilluted based on the number of players in a party and it is not an appropriate test of the hypothesis. Heck we could go with an 8 person party and it would have even a smaller overall affect than a 4-person party, but in all these cases the effect on the player and their rolls is the same.

If we are testing the effect on a PC and we are using a party made up of more than one PC then every PC needs to have that effect.

If the argument is having a PC with a lower strength and Constitution has almost no effect on the rest of the party, I agree wholeheartedly.

*Edit - It depends on the metric you are using for evaluation. If you are replacing one PC in a party with a low stat player and then measuring the damage output of each individually and comparing it to other party members (did low stat guy do less damage than high stat guys). This is an appropriate test. If you are comparing the success of the party as a whole and comparing one party with one low stat player and one party with no low stat PCs and measuring - do we win, how many PCs die in the engagement etc, then it is not an appropriate test. I realize I may have misunderstood what you were saying.