Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Another attempt at fixing the -5 / +10 issue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7624201" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Power attack in forms that allowed chosen minuses to hit and comparable gains in damage have been around for a while in various types of d20 gsmes snd others for a long time.</p><p></p><p>Experience with them backs up your claims in actual play non-ehite room excels where the right assumptions get you amy results you want. </p><p></p><p>Those who typically evangelize the 5 -10 round here fall back when pressed on how you just eont use it when it's not superior and then ignore that part of the sample.</p><p></p><p>But, in actual play, a variable -×+2× will mean a lot more opportunities for the feat to give you extra. It eont be the same yield, but then, the -1 to -4 gains will be all coming from cases which would have been-0+0 so anything gained is more to the average. Its all gain, no downside if applies eith the same perfect choosing. </p><p></p><p>But, back to those pesky assumptions, to me it's a bit bigger than it likely seems to some. I never count either random distributions or such. Too often the math pretends to offset high results with low ones and rarely does that play out.</p><p></p><p>For my analysis, instead of random ACs or ACs distributed by entries in MM, I tend to pay more attention to "that matters". The idea is that casual warm- ups and skirmishes are gonna be over easy anyway. </p><p></p><p>The fights "that matter" are the hard to deadly ones. Those, IMO, do not show anything like an "even spread" of ACs or a bell curve of defenses. The fights that matter and are hard to deadly tend to combine higher ends of both defenses and offenses. </p><p></p><p>So, anything that weights the outputs against say AC 10-12 in anything even remotely the same zip code as the results against AC 18-20 is gonna be a product of that assumption. </p><p></p><p>Winning the hard fights that matter counts for a lot more than squashing the trivial fights that dont matter in 2 rounds of never-ending cantrips and swings rather than 3 rounds.</p><p></p><p>The -×+2× flexibility is gonna apply in more of those "hard that mwtter" than the locked in -5/+10 do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7624201, member: 6919838"] Power attack in forms that allowed chosen minuses to hit and comparable gains in damage have been around for a while in various types of d20 gsmes snd others for a long time. Experience with them backs up your claims in actual play non-ehite room excels where the right assumptions get you amy results you want. Those who typically evangelize the 5 -10 round here fall back when pressed on how you just eont use it when it's not superior and then ignore that part of the sample. But, in actual play, a variable -×+2× will mean a lot more opportunities for the feat to give you extra. It eont be the same yield, but then, the -1 to -4 gains will be all coming from cases which would have been-0+0 so anything gained is more to the average. Its all gain, no downside if applies eith the same perfect choosing. But, back to those pesky assumptions, to me it's a bit bigger than it likely seems to some. I never count either random distributions or such. Too often the math pretends to offset high results with low ones and rarely does that play out. For my analysis, instead of random ACs or ACs distributed by entries in MM, I tend to pay more attention to "that matters". The idea is that casual warm- ups and skirmishes are gonna be over easy anyway. The fights "that matter" are the hard to deadly ones. Those, IMO, do not show anything like an "even spread" of ACs or a bell curve of defenses. The fights that matter and are hard to deadly tend to combine higher ends of both defenses and offenses. So, anything that weights the outputs against say AC 10-12 in anything even remotely the same zip code as the results against AC 18-20 is gonna be a product of that assumption. Winning the hard fights that matter counts for a lot more than squashing the trivial fights that dont matter in 2 rounds of never-ending cantrips and swings rather than 3 rounds. The -×+2× flexibility is gonna apply in more of those "hard that mwtter" than the locked in -5/+10 do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Another attempt at fixing the -5 / +10 issue
Top