Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 6642057" data-attributes="member: 6939">Yeah...this is typical. Someone presents a 'proof', I show just how bad their math is, they start getting defensive and insulting.....often claiming it wasn't a proof, it was a 'real example'.....  So your solution is to just make up numbers instead?Real Data?? You did not offer 'data', you offered some random assumptions and tried to pass them off as "proof"You then made further bad assumptions about how a Paladin "would work"... is that also "real data"? Of course I included crits.... that is what you do when not simply making up numbers.... Um...sure.  Can you give us an example of 'real play' then? Because the one you gave would lead to a 12% boost from GWM, and a 25% boost from GWM+Precision Attack. Unless of course, you include 'lucky rolls' as part of your 'real data'Okay, while you try and re-write history, lets review: According to *your* numbers, there was a 45% chance to hit with GWM. Which grows to a 67.5% chance to hit with GWM+Precision Strike. And while you are "actually running", that 67% chance means they will hit "5 out of 6 times"DO you see a problem here yet?? Lets continue...So your 'real data' shows that 67% chance succeeds 83% of the time....so for your 'real data', you would say it hits *every single time*Now do you see the problem with your 'real data'??Translation: When you have an anecdote to challenge my anecdote....then we can talk about 'real data'.  I do want to admit, however, that I made a mistake and calculated the Maneuver dice as D8's instead of D10s.  I can redo the math, but it won't change much. Dave did not post 'data', Dave posted 'numbers'.  Data would include things like what level they were, attribute scores, feats, target ACs....stuff like that.  Since we now have evidence that you will both play fast and loose with your claims.... a list of 'numbers' just doesn't prove anything.Yay, more defensive attacks.... and dude.... it was *YOUR* scenario. Your brought it up to 'prove' how bad it was. Everything overshadows TWF...And you keep saying "huge damage spike".... I don't think you are using that correctly.... God this gets funny...  Yes, you have 'informed me'..... congrats. Lots of people have 'informed' me lots of things...yet when I ask for something more substantial than your random opinion.... I get "your BS math" instead.Yes, Fights are small and finite, which means when that GWM guy misses, its a big deal.  Yes, in your games, a 67% chance means they hit *every time*, but that doesn't happen for the rest of us.   And there is always a guy like you claiming that a 67% chance always hits 5 out of 6 times.... or conveniently ignoring the times when it only hit 4 times, or 3 times. If you don't do math, then stop putting up math 'proofs'.  If your only assertion is that you 'just know' and that you will deign to 'inform' everyone.... then fine.  You are allowed to make stuff up and use anecdotal data all you want.But, I *can* factor in almost all of those variables.Its not my fault if you refuse to even try....</blockquote>

Verification