Search results

No it is not. That is the party effectiveness, not the individual players effectiveness. Is a paralyzed player still effective because the party wins 99% of the fights without him? I mean the party effectiveness didn't change, so I guess paralyzation does not change the player effectiveness...

So being paralyzed all the time will barely register anywhere? I mean the rest of the party is carrying the load right! If you evaluated a paralyzed player against what the party can acheive, especially a big party, this is what you would get. The rest of the party are not constants. If they...

Ok here you go, No feats at all. 1. Four 2nd level Fighters vs 2 Ogres (this is your example) with 15 Strength and 15 Constitution, 2 with Longswords (AC19), 2 with Greataxes (AC17) in close melee and random initiative order: Chance of TPK: 2% Chance of 3 downed fighters: 5% Chance of 2...

Using a cherry picked 1damage vs 2 damage example you provided.

I edited the post you replied to as I may be talking about different things. Evaluating how a party does in combat is not an effective measure of the effectiveness of a player unless all players have the trait you are evaluating. Here is an example - If my player is completely paralyzed...

That example, as unrealistic as it is, shows a pretty darn big difference.

Yes, with those things the 2 damage 1st level PC you talked about wins most of the time .... as I said. There are none that provide Strength and Constitution, but we can go without feats. Are you happy with that?

Most combats don't have PCs doing 1 DPR like the example Maxperson provided. I was using the example provided.

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...

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

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...

No it can actually be a lot more than that. 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...

Oh I do understand it. While I am at it I will note that common levels of statistical significance are 0.01 and 0.05. So even if it was really only 5% difference in most things you would evaluate with statistics that is considered a significant deviation. Then the absolute difference in...

You were not the one I replied to. You did not make that claim. Go read the text I replied to! I quoted it exactly above. The claim I replied to and then you replied to me was specifically: "5% less effective" You do not get to tell me what other posters claimed, I can read it. I am...

No it wasn't. Stop lying. The claim was it is "5% less effective" 5% less effective is different tha hitting 5% less often. No it is not. As noted. That extra point of damage is the difference between a Goblin probably dying and probably not dying. That is not irrelevant. YOU are the...

It is not blatantly false. The WOTC backgrounds afford non-thematic options, something you say should not happen. Why not? If all the abilities were on the table you could still put your ASIs in the two that are appropriate. IF you don't think the backgrounds are flawed why do they need to...

The claim was it is a 5% difference. That claim is mathematically false. Damage matters and when a character does 5.5 damage on a hit, doing 1 more damage, even if you don't hit more, is an 18% increase when you do hit. In combat damage is the metric, not how often you hit. Doing 25% more...

Ok so they can't figure out how to get the backgrounds right .... like I said in the title. Right but 9 out of 16 backgrounds that are screwed up. And this is the key point - I can take an ASI that does not make sense in over half of the WOTC backgrounds already. If your position is only...

Tying them to class makes a crapload more sense than a +1 Charisma on a Hermit. I am the son of a Pirate, sailing since I was 2 years old, sharing a hammock, dealing with Scurvy, Seasickness, Legioners, Tuberculosis and living off of rat infested rations for months at a time. I get drunk in...

Yeah this is pretty telling, when the official organized play for 2024 avoids their own WOTC backgrounds, while making the DMs contractually do everything RAW.