Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is "Shield" too powerful?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Elric" data-source="post: 4695759" data-attributes="member: 1139"><p>Indeed, I’ve been quite up front from the beginning that I’m setting the number of attacks constant as a simplification. As I have mentioned repeatedly, thinking about an optimal use of Second Chance (in terms of average damage blocked) requires a simplifying assumption. One could, I suppose, think of the number of rounds as known constant and the chance a character would be attacked per round as another known constant, and solve from there for optimal strategies for Second Chance use as a function of the number of rounds, but I haven’t done that. </p><p></p><p>Changing from 8 rounds at 1 attack/round to 16 rounds at a 50% of an attack per round changes the probability distribution over the number of successful hits (as you can see, in the former case it’s not possible to get successfully hit 9 times, but this is possibly in the latter case), even though the average number stays the same. Changing to 32 rounds at a 25% chance of an attack per round would change the odds as well, though the average number of attacks would be the same in each case. </p><p></p><p>As I said in a previous post, which addressed this issue quite directly:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It’s not that my first equation must be in a deep and abiding sense correct. It’s that it involves fewer simplifying assumptions. We could do this calculation at any level of simplification desired. For example, assuming a distribution of the number of rounds and a distribution of the number of attacks on a given round (round 1, round 2, etc.) would generate its own probability distribution for the number of successful attacks, would be less simplified still. I wouldn't want to try doing it, but it's theoretically possible.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This requires the assumption that each attack has a set and independent percentage chance to target Reflex/AC in every encounter. As I indicated above in a response to APC, this is only an approximation to a varied set of encounters each with their own separate independent chance of an attack targeting AC/Reflex, which averages out over those encounters to 75% (and again, the approximation works slightly to Shield’s favor).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed, you will change the odds for Shield and Second Chance slightly (and in their favor) with your assumptions. However, the effect is going to be much larger for Shield if you are considering a “use it at the first opportunity” strategy for Second Chance. The reason, as I’ve indicated before, is being able to use Shield is much more dependent on being attacked by a decent number of attacks than Second Chance is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Elric, post: 4695759, member: 1139"] Indeed, I’ve been quite up front from the beginning that I’m setting the number of attacks constant as a simplification. As I have mentioned repeatedly, thinking about an optimal use of Second Chance (in terms of average damage blocked) requires a simplifying assumption. One could, I suppose, think of the number of rounds as known constant and the chance a character would be attacked per round as another known constant, and solve from there for optimal strategies for Second Chance use as a function of the number of rounds, but I haven’t done that. Changing from 8 rounds at 1 attack/round to 16 rounds at a 50% of an attack per round changes the probability distribution over the number of successful hits (as you can see, in the former case it’s not possible to get successfully hit 9 times, but this is possibly in the latter case), even though the average number stays the same. Changing to 32 rounds at a 25% chance of an attack per round would change the odds as well, though the average number of attacks would be the same in each case. As I said in a previous post, which addressed this issue quite directly: It’s not that my first equation must be in a deep and abiding sense correct. It’s that it involves fewer simplifying assumptions. We could do this calculation at any level of simplification desired. For example, assuming a distribution of the number of rounds and a distribution of the number of attacks on a given round (round 1, round 2, etc.) would generate its own probability distribution for the number of successful attacks, would be less simplified still. I wouldn't want to try doing it, but it's theoretically possible. This requires the assumption that each attack has a set and independent percentage chance to target Reflex/AC in every encounter. As I indicated above in a response to APC, this is only an approximation to a varied set of encounters each with their own separate independent chance of an attack targeting AC/Reflex, which averages out over those encounters to 75% (and again, the approximation works slightly to Shield’s favor). Indeed, you will change the odds for Shield and Second Chance slightly (and in their favor) with your assumptions. However, the effect is going to be much larger for Shield if you are considering a “use it at the first opportunity” strategy for Second Chance. The reason, as I’ve indicated before, is being able to use Shield is much more dependent on being attacked by a decent number of attacks than Second Chance is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is "Shield" too powerful?
Top