Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Numion" data-source="post: 1688074" data-attributes="member: 124">You keep talking about relative terms while I use absolute terms. Neither is wrong. The feat makes a difference 10% of the time (or 10% of all saving throws), regardless of the (percentage) increase in probability. Relative change isn't intresting because 30% increase of a small chance .. isn't a big improvement, and is different for different save DCs.Now I can admit too that the 1/10 difference is more precious for those who tend to fail a lot of saving throws. Just like I would value a million dollars (which of I have little) more than bill gates (who has many). But thats subjective.  All probabilities are conditional, so of course you need conditioning (for instance, all d20 rolls are conditional on the dice having 20 sides) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> What you said isn't really necessary since we can assume that rolling for save 'matters' in most cases - DCs are in the range where you can make the save with rolls other than 20. Since the distribution is uniform (for d20), the real distribution of the DCs don't matter because I used absolute terms. The feat still comes into play 10% of time. If you use relative terms, then the distribution is important.My point still is: the feat makes you succeed in one saving throw in ten that you would've failed without the feat. ) 9/10 you would fail or succeed regardless of the feat.</blockquote>

Verification