Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4611329" data-attributes="member: 94">Treebore, of course. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm&nbsp; &nbsp; :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />This is not the place to run through the probabilities-- they are long, they are complex, they are not message-board friendly. For some attack permutations, we are talking about 1 chance in 160,000.Everything you need to know is in the first post. I will repeat it, not to hammer on you, but because I want everyone to be clear.The fighter does not LOSE damage against 80-90% of all creatures. He GAINS damage. He GAINS damage even without his 3rd and 4th attack. This change IMPROVES the fighter by increasing his damage against the bulk of foes he will ever face.Let me repeat that:A two-attack sequence of 0/0 has a greater expected damage output than a four-attack sequence of 0/-5/-10/-15 against most creatures you will ever encounter.He will lose damage against the edge cases-- creatures with an AC so high you basically need a natural 20 to hit, and creatures with an AC so low you basically need a 1 to miss.Most creatures in the SRD-- that is, 80%-90% of all creatures-- fall inside an expected AC range that does not include these edge cases.But I am not willing to necessarily throw those edge cases away without sounding it out with other folks. Is the trade-off worth it if there is a perceptible increase in combat resolution at your table? Even if occasionally you will come up against a creature that you would have done better against using the old method (3rd and 4th attack)?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 4611329, member: 94"] Treebore, of course. :hmm: This is not the place to run through the probabilities-- they are long, they are complex, they are not message-board friendly. For some attack permutations, we are talking about 1 chance in 160,000. Everything you need to know is in the first post. I will repeat it, not to hammer on you, but because I want everyone to be clear. The fighter does not LOSE damage against 80-90% of all creatures. He GAINS damage. He GAINS damage even without his 3rd and 4th attack. This change IMPROVES the fighter by increasing his damage against the bulk of foes he will ever face. Let me repeat that: A two-attack sequence of 0/0 has a greater expected damage output than a four-attack sequence of 0/-5/-10/-15 against most creatures you will ever encounter. He will lose damage against the edge cases-- creatures with an AC so high you basically need a natural 20 to hit, and creatures with an AC so low you basically need a 1 to miss. Most creatures in the SRD-- that is, 80%-90% of all creatures-- fall inside an expected AC range that does not include these edge cases. But I am not willing to necessarily throw those edge cases away without sounding it out with other folks. Is the trade-off worth it if there is a perceptible increase in combat resolution at your table? Even if occasionally you will come up against a creature that you would have done better against using the old method (3rd and 4th attack)? [/QUOTE]

Verification