Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8228210" data-attributes="member: 7019027">The standard deviation/variance shouldn't be mistaken for a + damage tolerance or the range. If you miss your attacks, you are giving up 8d6+10 damage, even with 100+ hp, 38 average damage can be very important to ending the fight early. Taking unnecessary risks are bad decisions. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. Now, most rogues don't have alternatives within their means, so its not like they chose poorly to use their action, but they are a swingier class by nature of having fewer attacks. Variance is never reduced no matter how many rolls you make. You're thinking about the average of rolls versus the expected average roll. 2-4 rolls are definitely not enough to evoke the Law of Large Numbers as a relevant point, though. Don't forget that its about likely scenarios as well. Actually, in the rogue's case, the most likely damage output the rogue produces in a round is 0, almost 4x as likely as their second most likely damage of 31. Their chart is heavily skewed such that alot of their average damage is due to their very high damage upwards of 106 damage theoretically possible but highly improbable. I'm talking a 1.48x10^-7% chance of occuring and less than a 1% chance to do higher than 70 damage. So they have a large chunk of probability on the left-hand side of the curve and a very thin tail skewing all the way to the right.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Asisreo, post: 8228210, member: 7019027"] The standard deviation/variance shouldn't be mistaken for a [U]+[/U] damage tolerance or the range. If you miss your attacks, you are giving up 8d6+10 damage, even with 100+ hp, 38 average damage can be very important to ending the fight early. Taking unnecessary risks are bad decisions. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. Now, most rogues don't have alternatives within their means, so its not like they chose poorly to use their action, but they are a swingier class by nature of having fewer attacks. Variance is never reduced no matter how many rolls you make. You're thinking about the average of rolls versus the expected average roll. 2-4 rolls are definitely not enough to evoke the Law of Large Numbers as a relevant point, though. Don't forget that its about likely scenarios as well. Actually, in the rogue's case, the most likely damage output the rogue produces in a round is 0, almost 4x as likely as their second most likely damage of 31. Their chart is heavily skewed such that alot of their average damage is due to their very high damage upwards of 106 damage theoretically possible but highly improbable. I'm talking a 1.48x10^-7% chance of occuring and less than a 1% chance to do higher than 70 damage. So they have a large chunk of probability on the left-hand side of the curve and a very thin tail skewing all the way to the right. [/QUOTE]

Verification