Search results

That sounds more like ddo than the ttrpg version of d&d where a real flesh & blood human takes the role of gm.your description of what you regularly present as big standard examples of gameplay is so incredibly unique im wondering if you happen to play in a group with 29-39 regular AI users?

Conspiracy theories? I reading a lot of implied and hypothetical reasons why the data represented in the math could be something not representative of the obvious result rather being used for any assumptions. What I'm not reading is any reason supporting such a claim about the obvious math...

The link was included that link because it breaks down the math in a very obvious and hard to deny way that very much looks like it would be "concrete". I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say there to the point that it almost looks like you may trying to say "I reject that math...

That's what makes it such an interesting thing to speculate about. It's role as a companion book opens a lot of possibilities when it comes to things like leveling/chargen rules & creature support for the setting itself. Rising was a great setting book, but the PC chargen rule & creature...

I'm not going to do any math on verifying this through the cobwebs but It's been a long time since I remember anyone feeling the need to explain it beyond it being a solid rule of thumb with 5e that generally works out pretty close in actual play, but I think that it was some combination of...

Ynobody can inadvertently try so hard to avoid answering the simple question of how you selected the SIX "% chance" values by mistake. There are almost certainly additional problems with how you generated the damage values from those SIX values as well but you have presented a wall of...

Trouble is all the other questionable numbers in the %chance columns including the green "regular" one that would not involve (dis)advantage. Figuring out your assumptions is important because the math doesn't align logically. For example: a 65% chance of a 65% chance is 42%, you have a 42%...

I don't think that it's as difficult as some folks make it out to be. Dndshorts did a great video about (4e) dark sun today. He left out the cleansing wars and the important associated bits that explain why the people of athas can't just evolve their civilization to recover from that collapse...

What is there to be "confused" about? 65% gets thrown around regularly because it's a good rough estimate for 5e's expected hit rate, it's also a number not found anywhere on your excel snippet where it could be used to extrapolate the math used for what other entities are representing. Your "%...

In that case it raises questions like what you are trying to model and the details of any non-posterior sourced logic that went into the math involved in deciding upon numbers for the "% chance". Even beyond that you have entries like the first row that seem to either involve a bad rounddown...

It looks like you are trying to map some of the percentages noted in post76. It's good that you don't appear to have made the common statistical mistake of multiplying the average damage across a statistically significant number of attacks (IoW hundreds) With that said, post 76 was not...

I suspect that the 65%hitrate in 5e was on some level helped along by bad math and hst came from approaching the attack chain as a thing where later attacks depended on the previous one succeeding rather than each attack being an isolated 65%. If that were the case iit would be a maybe...

Warlock (and Monk) would absolutely be even more of a problem without being converted back to fractional long rest based or taking a page from how spell slot gain progression rate keeps slowing down from mid/late tier2+. Without such a rework, that kind of recovery would be borked as hell by...

That's not how movement works, it's done 5feet at a time with a 5 foot grid because the moving creature can't always know if something will cause a problem even if it's often (but not always) knowable before moving. Did you not take geometry yet? 90 degrees is a right angle on the grid like...

Hyperbole much? What math do you think there is in the 3.5 flight rules embedded above in post 21? After pointing out the "math", maybe try describing a situation that might require a calculator. Do you really think that s calculator is required to figure out things like half and double speed?

Yea, I don't remember the vertical climb & dive coming up very often. Although turn radius and min forward speed came up almost any time something was flying and did a lot to differentiate flight from standing on the ground

Others have suggested it but 2e &3.x had very solid flight rules. Going beyond that though id suggest using 3.x without perfect maneuverability outside of unusual flight methods that justify it. The 2e rules draw too heavily on some dog fighting wargame fundamentals and include a whole bunch of...

Your entire post seems to be various flavors of claiming that you are not convinced from your self granted position of authority over acceptable vrs badwrongfun play.. worse is that you do it while relying on a strongly implied "wotc did surveys and they know what's fun" in all of those bolded...