Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eventually, but not until the one-on-one fight is done through level 30.

I think I want to avoid making the monsters to complex for now. For one, that takes away time from getting the rest of the sim working; and for two, the purpose of this first experiment is to test the "math is broken" argument.

The "math is broken" argument comes from looking at the DMG monsters and seeing that their to-hit and AC rises faster than PCs to-hit and AC. Since the argument is really nothing more than comparing one PC to one vanilla monster, testing it doesn't require more than one PC vs. one vanilla monster.

Well, I certainly endorse the "get it all working first" approach.

I do respectfully disagree about the nature of what model tests what. The PC has feats and powers. If you want to test the "bare math" then essentially you'd need to strip your PC down to a single generic power and forget about feats unless perhaps they directly increase a defense or damage. In essence you're pitting a fully featured PC against "half a monster", of course the PC always wins! The math was NEVER intended to balance that at all. It was always assumed from day 1 that monsters would have more than just base powers, just like it is assumed that PCs have feats etc.

There is one other somewhat unrelated thing I am wondering about as well. It isn't necessarily directly relevant to detecting the influence of changing math, but it may bear on it. What really is the "set point" for PC survivability? I would have to imagine that the system has to assume an average PC survival rate that gives roughly at least a 50/50 chance of a PC surviving in excess of 100 combat encounters. In other words I'd figure its tuned to give the PC about a 99.5% or higher encounter survival rate. This may well be why you find it necessary to push the monster levels up in order to see useful results, given that your error bars easily let you hit 100% as the system was designed to work.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Hmm.
I don't think it matters what the pc survivability rates actually are, but rather how it changes as the levels go up.

So saying, though ... maybe the results would mean more if it's done with a build that's less tanky?
Sure, optimise the build, but start with a build that's not meant to take a billion damage worth of punishment ...
Say ... a dragonborn hammer&shield weapon talent fighter instead.

 

[Truename]

I don't think it matters what the pc survivability rates actually are, but rather how it changes as the levels go up.

Agreed.

So saying, though ... maybe the results would mean more if it's done with a build that's less tanky?
Sure, optimise the build, but start with a build that's not meant to take a billion damage worth of punishment ...
Say ... a dragonborn hammer&shield weapon talent fighter instead.

I would agree with you if you had said this back at level 1. As it is, I don't want to throw away the work I've done. I'm open to swapping out a few powers or items, but I don't want to start over with a whole new build.

That said, Ragnarok is a dwarf hammer & shield weapon talent fighter, so I don't see much difference between him and what you're proposing. (He used to be a Battlerager Vigor fighter, which may be what you're thinking of, but we changed him to weapon talent a few days ago.)

 

[Danceofmasks]

Oh, didn't realised you switched.
That's cool, then ... 'cos dwarf battlerager vs soldier = nigh invincible.

 

[Truename]

I do respectfully disagree about the nature of what model tests what. The PC has feats and powers. If you want to test the "bare math" then essentially you'd need to strip your PC down to a single generic power and forget about feats unless perhaps they directly increase a defense or damage.

Well, yes, that's the fundamental question in the "math is broken" argument. See http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/266962-math-glitch-explanation-pointer.html for a typical thread arguing the two sides. Some people believe (vigorously) that the disparity in to-hit/AC (and only that disparity) means all the math is broken, not just the bare numbers. Others believe that feats, powers, and so forth make up the difference. (Me? I'm just having fun.)

That's what we're testing.

In essence you're pitting a fully featured PC against "half a monster", of course the PC always wins! The math was NEVER intended to balance that at all. It was always assumed from day 1 that monsters would have more than just base powers, just like it is assumed that PCs have feats etc.

After we finish this first experiment, it would be interesting to pit Ragnarok against an actual soldier from each level. I'd like to know how much of a difference it makes. That would also be a nice intermediate step before a full five-on-five sim.

There is one other somewhat unrelated thing I am wondering about as well. It isn't necessarily directly relevant to detecting the influence of changing math, but it may bear on it. What really is the "set point" for PC survivability? I would have to imagine that the system has to assume an average PC survival rate that gives roughly at least a 50/50 chance of a PC surviving in excess of 100 combat encounters. In other words I'd figure its tuned to give the PC about a 99.5% or higher encounter survival rate. This may well be why you find it necessary to push the monster levels up in order to see useful results, given that your error bars easily let you hit 100% as the system was designed to work.

As Danceofmasks said, it's the change in survivability we're looking at. The original difficulty level (+3, 0, 2, 0, 1) gave us about 50% survival at level 1. As Ragnarok gets more powerful, I bump up the difficulty so we can continue to see changes. As a 1-on-1 sim, it's not going to predict your actual experience at the table.

 

[Truename]

Oh, didn't realised you switched.
That's cool, then ... 'cos dwarf battlerager vs soldier = nigh invincible.

I have a direct comparison of survivability here, if you're interested: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...1-monte-carlo-versus-math-10.html#post5043721

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, to be fair the "to hit argument" does depend on what the enemies are doing on a hit as well as it does the PCs - if the enmey is stunning or dazzing you on a hit, that's pretty important.

That said, in this first run through, I can understand the point of keeping it simple. That said, after we get to level 30 it may be worthwhile to send him against enemies considered to be particularly challenging for their level.

 

[Destil]

Looking ahead, I'll need a new feat for level 14, since I've already retrained into Marked Scourge.

My vote is still something that doesn't affect the simulation at all (especially with it riding around 100%) like Devoted Challenge.

 

[Truename]

Hrmm, I had redone the list of feats and powers... *looks* What the... it lost my edit. I'll fix that again

Thanks for doing all the hard work on Ragnarok's build. I just took a look at what's coming up and I noticed that War Ring (Paragon) is on there twice--at 17th and 19th level.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Eventually, but not until the one-on-one fight is done through level 30.





I think I want to avoid making the monsters to complex for now. For one, that takes away time from getting the rest of the sim working; and for two, the purpose of this first experiment is to test the "math is broken" argument.

I think increasing the complexity of the monster might be an important step towards your "full on" party vs monster group simulation. I think this goal will prove fiendishly complex. You will eventually have to add movement considerations and combat advantage into it. Adding a few small conditions to the simulation might make that final goal a little easier.

The "math is broken" argument comes from looking at the DMG monsters and seeing that their to-hit and AC rises faster than PCs to-hit and AC. Since the argument is really nothing more than comparing one PC to one vanilla monster, testing it doesn't require more than one PC vs. one vanilla monster.

This is just the first "step" of the "math is broken". But monster and PC powers, PC class features, paragon pathes and epic destinies were always part of the system (unlike the Expertise feas), and there was always also the argument that these have to be considered when discussing the math - but no one knew how.