Displacement - a bit wussy eh? Mirror image too...

[Puggins]

Actually, I have to call mathematical foul on this one. The advantages you list range from 1% to 10% advantage for a single attack. That's hardly overwhelming.

Let's look at two attacks against an opponent in a single round for both:

Sure, let's do that. Your method is statistically inaccurate, since you're assuming that the displacement will always be needed on one of the rolls.

If you don't mind, I'm going to use an 11+ to hit, since it gives us a nice, even 50% for calculations' sake.

Shielding Smite:

42.25% of the time (.65x.65), both attacks will miss, yielding no hits.
12.25% of the time (.35x.35), both attacks will hit, yielding two hits. Average hits yielded = 2 x 0.1225 = 0.2450
45.50% of the time (1-.4225-.1225), one attack will hit, yielding one hit. Average hits yielded = 1 x 0.4550 = 0.4550

Average Number of hits over all probabilities = 0.2450 + 0.4550 = 0.7 hits

Displacement:

Displacement will negate half of one hit, since that hit will then have a 50% chance to miss.

25% of the time (.5x.5), both attacks will miss, yielding no hits.
25% of the time (.5x.5), both attacks will hit, yielding 1.5 hits. Average hits yielded = 1.5 x 0.25 = 0.375
50% of the time (1-.25-.25), one attack will hit, yielding one hit. Average hits yielded = 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25

Average Number of hits over all probabilities = 0.625, 11% less than Shielding Smite

It gets worse as the odds of hitting go above 11+. With two attacks, the break-even point is around a 7+ to hit. Above that, Displacement is better. Of course, as the number of attacks increase, the break-even point will start rising quite a bit. Still, displacement is clearly better until at least 3 attacks start coming in.

 

[Cadfan]

This has a big gaping hole assumption in it.

It assumes the DM says "The BBEG uses his big 3d10+3 daily attack against you".

We do not know the rules for attack type perception in the game, but your example has a pretty big assumption that the Wizard not only has an immediate action available (i.e. he could have used a different immediate action this round when Displacement is needed), but that he knows exactly when to use it (i.e. he knows a daily power is being used).

First, yeah, I assume the Wizard has an immediate action available (I also assume that the Paladin has a standard action available...) I think that's a fair assumption. Now its possible that the Wizard is going to be loaded down with immediate action abilities, and the availability of an immediate action will be an uncertain thing at any given moment. But I don't believe that. Historically that has not been the case in D&D. We haven't seen a plethora of immediate action abilities that would make the availability of an immediate action a concern. Do you, in sincerity, believe this will likely be an issue?

Second, yes, I am making an assumption about whether you can perceive the nature of incoming attacks, but its one that historically has been built into D&D. Its built right into the counterspelling system in 3e, for one, and for two, if you describe enemy attacks, it happens automatically. When a Bodak stares at you and you feel your inner strength begin to give out (ie, you roll a fortitude save), it shouldn't take more than one Bodak fight for you to figure out what's going on.

And as shown in Puggins math above, the advantage gained is only in the 1% to 10% range (depending on chance to hit) compared with a single Shielding Smite defended attack. Even for the 3D10+3, that's a small percentage of average damage less done on that one attack versus 15% more average done on each of the 3 D8+1 attacks.

The Puggins math showed that the advantage that a reroll has over +3 AC is about 10% or better for attacks which hit between 10+ and 15+ on a d20. Between that and the fact that Displacement happens on YOUR terms rather than the terms your opponent dictates to you, it seems like this is a nice support for my position.

PS's and my point is not that Displacement is useless, it's that it's lame for a 16th level power. I suspect that when we compare it to other 16th level and lower level similar powers in June, this opinion of ours might be supported.

There are other 16th level spells available for our review right now. Go take a look at a few. I have, and I still like Displacement. I do think it could have been made available at earlier levels, since it auto-scales. But that's not the same as saying that its weak at level 16.

 

[Cadfan]

The real issue here is that Displacement is a high level power which has a fair chance of failing. 1 encounter out of 2 (or more often against BBEGs), it probably won't do a darn thing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is true of every single attack power we've seen in all of 4e, at least up to this point. And it is also true of every single defensive power we've seen in all of 4e, except for the ones that confer energy resistance. Sometimes, in spite of all the bonuses you pile on, attacks miss. Sometimes, in spite of all the bonuses you pile on, enemies hit you anyways. Its a dice game.

 

[catsclaw]

A 16th level ability that might not be able to be used, that may or may not protect against a single attack (or might make it worse), is not 16th level potent.

According to what, exactly? Since we've only seen a handful of other powers at those levels, you saying it "is not 16th level potent" means absolutely nothing. You have no idea if it's balanced, because you don't know what it's balanced against.

The real issue here is that Displacement is a high level power which has a fair chance of failing. 1 encounter out of 2 (or more often against BBEGs), it probably won't do a darn thing.

Or, if you only use it when something crits, you'll virtually always improve things.

Are you arguing it's too weak compared to the other 16th level powers we haven't seen? Or that if you were designing a game, you'd make 16th level powers more powerful?

 

[Lacyon]

Sure, let's do that. Your method is statistically inaccurate, since you're assuming that the displacement will always be needed on one of the rolls.

If you don't mind, I'm going to use an 11+ to hit, since it gives us a nice, even 50% for calculations' sake.

Shielding Smite:

42.25% of the time (.65x.65), both attacks will miss, yielding no hits.
12.25% of the time (.35x.35), both attacks will hit, yielding two hits. Average hits yielded = 2 x 0.1225 = 0.2450
45.50% of the time (1-.4225-.1225), one attack will hit, yielding one hit. Average hits yielded = 1 x 0.4550 = 0.4550

Average Number of hits over all probabilities = 0.2450 + 0.4550 = 0.7 hits

Displacement:

Displacement will negate half of one hit, since that hit will then have a 50% chance to miss.

25% of the time (.5x.5), both attacks will miss, yielding no hits.
25% of the time (.5x.5), both attacks will hit, yielding 1.5 hits. Average hits yielded = 1.5 x 0.25 = 0.375
50% of the time (1-.25-.25), one attack will hit, yielding one hit. Average hits yielded = 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25

Average Number of hits over all probabilities = 0.625, 11% less than Shielding Smite

Even better than that, you still have a 25% chance of still having your Displacement left.

Because of this fact, my math says Displacement's on average better against 3 incoming attacks this turn if you're going to be targeted by at least one attack next turn (albeit by a pretty small margin).

 

[frankthedm]

You are missing the point. Every attack that rolls a 1 misses wildly and destroys an image. How does that make sense?

It would make sense if (and only if) an image was destroyed on either a hit or a miss by the amount of current protection you are recieving or SOMETHING like that.

The image does not have the defences of the mage. It's AC is going to be around 10 or so. Since it is a 16th level power, most foes will be hitting AC 10 no matter what gets rolled. but on that subject...

Destroying an image by an attack that rolls a 1? Doesn't work logically, doesn't work mechanically.

Ruling the image stays if the attacker rolls a natural one seems fine and fair.

 

[Lacyon]

Destroying an image by an attack that rolls a 1? Doesn't work logically, doesn't work mechanically.

I beg to differ. It works perfectly fine mechanically: Did an attack targeting you miss? If yes, the bonus provided by this power decreases.

And the spell never worked logically in the first place. There's no logical reason why an image that got hit by an attack should be destroyed at all, only the magical reason that the rule text says so.

Logically, if the rationale for why an image disappears is that it's a shadow construction and hence partially real, subject to real damage, why doesn't a fireball in the area destroy all your images? Logically, if the rationale for why an image disappears when hit is that an opponent then realizes it's a fake image, why doesn't the "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded" text apply?

Logically, the only rationale for why images disappear under some circumstances and not others is "Because it's magic," under which interpretation the 4E effect works fine.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I'm amused that it was pointed out the page beforehand that Displacement works against all defenses, but People only used AC in their math anyway. And people have gone all "oh, but what if you get attacked 3 times", ignoring the possibility that monsters may not have been going to attack that character anyway. Personally I expect to see Displacement used as a crit negation power, but but YMMV.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I expect to see Displacement used as a crit negation power, but but YMMV.

That would certainly seem to be the most rational use of this power, and what I'd expect to see most often.

 

[KarinsDad]

It gets worse as the odds of hitting go above 11+. With two attacks, the break-even point is around a 7+ to hit. Above that, Displacement is better. Of course, as the number of attacks increase, the break-even point will start rising quite a bit. Still, displacement is clearly better until at least 3 attacks start coming in.

My bad on the math. That’s what happens when I try to do this at work when I have only a few minutes.

I put your equations into a spreadsheet. For 2 attacks, it comes out to 9 to 16 needed on the die advantage Displacement, 8 is more or less a tie (the break even point), and 17+ and 7- are advantage Shielding Smite.

The highest percentage advantage was about 19% (less average damage) for a 14 or a 15 needed to roll (for an attack that does 10 points, this means 8 points instead of 10 on average, not a huge gain).

In other words, Displacement gives the highest advantage over mooks where damage and the chance to hit is typically low. So, the Displacement advantage you are talking about will not be seen too often in the game since a Wizard will tend to not protect against single mook attacks with Displacement too often. Also, mook attacks tend to not be encounter breaking.


Against BBEGs where the chance to hit a PC is often greater than 50%, where the number of attacks per round is sometimes greater than one, and where the damage is typically greater, the percentage advantage for 2 attacks based on what number is needed to be rolled is:

10 7% in favor of Disp
9 4% in favor of Disp
8 <1% in favor of Disp, nearly a tie
7 2% in favor of SS
6 5% in favor of SS

The odds against BBEGs does not heavily favor Displacement here.

Remember, it's not too difficult to get to 2 or more attacks with a single BBEG when one considers Immediate Attacks, Opportunity Attacks, plus special powers (such as Double Attack).


One other note on this using your math:

Shielding Smite:

42.25% of the time, both attacks will miss
45.50% of the time, one attack will hit
12.25% of the time, both attacks will hit

Displacement:

50% of the time, both attacks will miss (25% outright and 25% due to Displacement)
31.25% of the time, one attack will hit
18.75% of the time, both attacks will hit

Although Displacement averages less damage (by 11%) against 2 attacks, it also results in both hits actually hitting more often by a factor of more than 3 to 2. Shielding Smite might average slightly more damage, but the big double hit (which can be encounter breaking) occurs less often with it.