Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6067932" data-attributes="member: 8835">bear in mind, somebody with greater math skills will point out some more correct calculation method.  But here's my logic.It's like the lottery caclulation, you pay $1 for a ticket and you have a 1% chance of winning the $500 lottery (I'm using easy numbers for math here).The effective value of that ticket for the decision to pay $1 for a chance to win $500 is equal to $500/1% which equals $5.  Since $5 is > $1, buying the ticket is a good investment.  That formula is sound, and if you plugged in real lottery numbers, you'd know when it's a waste of your money.Now, if you buy 2 tickets (kindof like having 2 attacks), you add them together, because you've "statistically won" $5 each.So, with each single attack being worth 1.35 statistically, we add them together for their total worth.I'm using the wrong term, but it's statistical worth is not the same as it's actual value (which won't be known until the dice are rolled).Let's use another common example, claw/claw/bite for 1d6/1d6/1d8 at +6/+6/+8 attack.  This would demonstrate how to apply the method to an assymetrical attack pattern (non-matching quantities).The average damage is 3.5/3.5/4.5each claw at 30% chance is worth 1.05the bite at 40% is worth 1.8Add them all up:1.05 + 1.05 + 1.8 = 3.9The damage range on hit is 1-20 (6+6+8).  however, rolling a 1d20 is a bit swingy, compared to what would actually happen if all 3 attacks hit.  I would argue, like before, that we always just roll all the dice for these "cumulated" attacks as 2d6+1d8 on a hit.With that, all I need to do is calculate what % to hit will give me a 3.9 damage from the average roll generated by 2d6+1d8  (which is 11.5 for the raw die average)).3.9/11.5 = 0.3391304347826087So 33% which in D&D needs to be 30% or 35%. Rounding to the higher value seems fair, so 35% is +7 to hit for 2d6+1d8 damage.As I disclaimed before, the math is solid enough, but I can't say the algorithm is perfect.  If you had +0 to hit, my formula would fail (0% of any die roll would imply you always miss), as it's missing something to account for that (namely some non-zero baseline).But for non-zero multi-attack coaggulations, it calculates a correct enough result  based on my very tiny testing size.</blockquote>

Verification