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: 4696955" data-attributes="member: 82732">Because probability is not linear it's quite possible that in 2 separate encounters a wizard faced with 14 ATT in both might be hit 10 times and 4 times.  Your methodology doesn't account for the fact that random distribution favors the utility of second chance.  actually it boils down to you arguing that shield is over powered and comparing it endlessly to second chance which isn't a level 2 power. This is another over simplification and wrong.  You're not accounting for minions, a more threatening attack on the battlefield that might cause you to reserve it, the actual hit values, or the added weight that should be attributed to non AC attacks.  That said assuming that shield will block 30% of all 1st hits doesn't offend me, nor tilt the scales in it's favor, I'm wondering how you make the leap to it being overpowered. There are numerous factors not being accounted for in your math.  Your number IS NOT exactly correct and no number could be EXACTLY correct with out a very complex environmental model (even then no one reasonable would attribute exact to the model).  The only number that can be exactly correct is that shield will be able to block 20% of all attacks vs AC or reflex.  Not hits, attacks.  We only know the range with 100% accuracy on ATT's and we do not know it on hits. You're really missing the point that because of random distribution sometimes either power will face a higher percentage of hits for x number of attacks and conversely sometimes there will be a lower percentage.  This works to shields detriment as the variability dramatically increases the number of encounters where shield will remain unusable.and yet you steadfastly ignore the comparison to shield of faith.  Please explain how shield is over powered and shield of faith is not?Ignoring the problems with your model is what's not valid.  The question is and always has been is shield overpowered.  Ignoring attacks and concentrating on hits increases shields power relatively to second chance.  Repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make your argument valid it's just a tactic people with no case use to deflect from the real issue. When comparing how effective shield is to second chance you MUST try to account for the varied distribution of hits from encounter to encounter.  Especially if you're trying to decide which has the highest average damage reduction.  I'm not too interested in highest average damage reduction though it's certainly a factor in determining which is more powerful.  What really matters is which power will save your bacon more often.  If you block some damage in an encounter that doesn't matter it's somewhat less important.   what question have you answered?  based upon blocking 40% of all hits 75% of the time?  It's baffling to me that you can't see both the 75% and the 40% are flawed.  Is it your experience that every time the dm rolls an 11 he hits and every time he rolls a 10 he misses?  If your answer is no, then you're agreeing that 50% hits is an approximation which by definition introduces some error to the math.  Using 20% of attacks avoids this error.  When using the distribution formula's elric has been using the error created by this assumption is magnified exponentially.I made this point several times.   The thread is asking if shield is over powered and we're 100+ posts in talking about second chance.  There's not even a significant basis for comparing them as one is a racial power and the other is a level two utility power.  I repeatedly asked KD to compare shields defensive value to Shield of Faith (another level 2 utility that prevents damage so MUCH MORE RELEVANT) but he's really just interested in steam rolling the thread down his tangential path.</blockquote>

Verification