Search results

Just in case you got lost in the above (correct) formulas I'll give you a rundown of the results: Acrobatics DC 5 Damage expected for skill bonus 5: None Damage expected for skill bonus 10: None Damage expected for skill bonus 15: None Damage expected for skill bonus 17: None Acrobatics...

Oh, that's very cool.

Precisely. But, in fact, there IS a guideline. Which can be deduced from the desing of Elites and Solos. They should replace two or five monsters respectively. So you when you have to decide how to handle them, you must keep in mind that you must keep the monster challenging as two or five...

Yep, only enemies that put conditions have some incentive to ignore the Aegis. Mmm, not always. If the enemy can shift and then charge another (squishier) party member, then it's usually better to do that. You think? You're promoting the defender's damage to striker damage if you do that. I'm...

Mmm, I'm not sure about that. In any case, I chose not to go that way because I wanted to analyze the case where you had different chances for each roll of the SC. And you can't do that with a formula (at least not in this case). That's why I needed a program like the one I did, so you can...

Mmm, I don't know what you mean here. This calculation takes into account the success chance of a roll. It doesn't account for skill bonuses or DCs. You mean that it is rare that a party has always the same chance for each roll accross a SC? I ran some cases, which I don't consider conclusive...

Railing don't need rules. They are there for a single purpose: to avoid people falling over. They should work as a wall. Not much point in having a railing if they don't work that way. A faulty railing OTOH...

I believe that ANYONE can tell if it's attacks are been ineffective. Animals, Oozes, Constructs, anything. These are extremely basic capabilities that any combatant should have. To be a threat, that is. I don't think it's a fallacy, not in the strict term at least. I you were 100% sure that...

As a DM, I'm almost always ignoring defenders, going straight for the squishies (Strikers and Leaders for the most part). As people already said, these are the factors that make the enemies worth ignoring the defender: - very high defender AC - high damage/conditions for ignoring defender's...

Oh no! I hope they don't die :(

Take a look at Al'Kelhar's Myconids.doc file (in previous page), it has something like that.

As keterys said. Although this would eat all of his actions, it's DPR would be at it maximum. A swallowed character could receive upto 45 damage per round.

Nice houserule Dr_Ruminahui, I think I'll adopt it.

Yes, I would redo the controller Myconid. It's super lame. Make it create a zone, and sustain it. Spores, zones, they are good together :)

I don't know why people give these rules so much credit as to read de RAW. This ruleset has consistently proved that it's RAW sucks. Big time.

The code For those who asked, here's the code: The evaluation code, which generates the text I posted: | calculator result desc | desc := WriteStream on: String new. 1 to: 5 do: [ :complexity | | successes failures maxNumberOfRolls | successes := 2 + (2 * complexity). failures := 3...

Sorry for the multiple post, I think it makes clearer the different results and answers. This are the results of the errata applied: Success chance for Skill Challenges complexity 1 (Need 4 successes before 3 failures) Individual chance 30%: 7% Individual chance 35%: 12% Individual chance...

The above calculations are exact. The calculus is somewhat complex, because it first makes a tree of all the possible paths of rolls: Example for Complexity: 3 successes, 3 failures Path 1: 3 successes Path 2: 2 successes, 1 failure, 1 success Path 3: 1 success, 2 failures, 1 success ... Path...

You're right, I'm going to edit the first page and make it clear how many successes and failures I've calculated those results with. Ok, so the results above should still apply for Complexity 2 Skill Challenges. They need 6 successes before 3 failures in both systems. Slightly off-topic, but I...

4E has some basic principles, some base damage, defenses, etc. This core can be tested with a high degree of accuracy. The builds of each class, feats, and other details are just that, details. They CAN be evaluated, but it only makes sense after the core has been measured.