Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4692499" data-attributes="member: 2011">It's useful 40% of the time a (50% chance to hit) attack hits.But in the case of 2e, it's never used when it is not useful.In the case of 2d, it's rarely used when it is not useful.Hence, it is basically auto-protect for those DM situations. It's:DM: &quot;He hits you.&quot;Player: &quot;No he doesn't.&quot;The issue is that 2e's chance to fail is 0%, not that it cannot always be used if the DM plays it that way. It is always more useful if it cannot fail when it can be used than if it possibly can fail.There is no chance of failure for 2e, hence, 2e is more useful than 2a through 2d. There is almost no chance of failure for 2d, hence, 2d is more useful than 2a through 2c.Can you calculate the exact amount those are better? I cannot. I just know they are a lot better than if using it can fail.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 4692499, member: 2011"] It's useful 40% of the time a (50% chance to hit) attack hits. But in the case of 2e, it's never used when it is not useful. In the case of 2d, it's rarely used when it is not useful. Hence, it is basically auto-protect for those DM situations. It's: DM: "He hits you." Player: "No he doesn't." The issue is that 2e's chance to fail is 0%, not that it cannot always be used if the DM plays it that way. It is always more useful if it cannot fail when it can be used than if it possibly can fail. There is no chance of failure for 2e, hence, 2e is more useful than 2a through 2d. There is almost no chance of failure for 2d, hence, 2d is more useful than 2a through 2c. Can you calculate the exact amount those are better? I cannot. I just know they are a lot better than if using it can fail. [/QUOTE]

Verification