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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryPurpleCyclops" data-source="post: 4692473" data-attributes="member: 82732">yes, lets talk about logical fallacies shall we. You're making an argument about effectiveness based upon a situation that happens maybe 1% of the time.    Now you're talking about "potential"?  What percentage of combat rounds does a wizard face 5 attacks?  Not many if your wizard is planning on surviving.  In the event that you get attacked 5 times while the shield spell is working the math says you'll likely impact exactly one of them.  Hardly a huge difference maker.  So, less than 5% of the time you get to block 1 extra attack.  I'm being extremely generous here math wise because I've played a wizard and I don't remember ever facing 5 attacks in one round.  My only pc that ever faced 5 attacks in one round was a 4th level warlock and he was killed that round.  In any event second chance ALSO has the 95% chance to block a crit and it blocks roughly 25% of any attack it's used against.  My math is solid, your attention to detail is off.  I used the number 75% to come up with 15% effective.  Here it is in a nut shell, 20% of 75% = 15%.  Shield has the ability to block 15% of all attacks the wizard faces.  Are you following? This is another logical fallacy.  Maybe two at once.  I never made any reference to your point, I just mathematically disputed the argument being made that shield was more powerful than the halfling power.  I clearly demonstrated it's probably only about 60% as effective and only if you're getting the full disclosure version.  If you're getting the non disclosure version the halfling power is 5-15 times as effective.  That's 500-1500% for the math impaired.You're either being purposely being obtuse or you're not capable of rational discourse.  My math has no flaw, it's just your grasp of logic that's kind of broken.  Anecdotal evidence doesn't make an argument and it certainly doesn't impugn my math. I fully admit that in the case where the DM asks does 23 hit your AC is where shield works.  You apparently are skipping over the other 19 possibilities the DM might offer, 16 of those 19 are EXACTLY the 80% of the time where shield has no effect.So part of your argument is that because wizards can already have high AC they should be punished?  Perhaps no wizards should be allowed to use magical armor?  I'm not annoyed, this is the internet, I just felt someone ought to point out the ridiculous flaws in your swiss cheese argument.  Just for your edification AngryPurpleCyclops is a joke that has to do with being a sniper serving in Somolia and nothing to do with my temperament.  There aren't a lot of opportunities for "companionship".  This is a pg website but I glean you and I are of a similar age so I'll assume you can figure it out.  I just find it slightly funny.  I agree balance is a major part of any game system.  I think my math directly contradicted your position and more importantly shows that your position unbalances shield with regard to other powers.  You refusing to accept the math only supports my hypothesis that you're just interested in dominating the game/conversation not in reaching a factual conclusion.  I've worked on a dozen games as a play balance professional both computer games and table top games.  I'm not guessing here, I'm trying to educate you as to relative utility of powers.  Shield is hardly an auto success.  Anyone who has played a wizard will tell you that many combats end with it unexpended.  You have no factual argument so you switch to hyperbole to deflect from the untenable nature of your position.</blockquote>

Verification