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
No Iterative Attacks in D&D
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="Quartz" data-source="post: 3608502" data-attributes="member: 40552"><p>Not sure how I missed that but I think you're significantly misapplying the probabilities. The chance of succeeding blows actually connecting indeed, as you say, lessens, but the chance of <em>at least one</em> of the blows actually connecting increases dramatically.</p><p></p><p>Let's take the extreme example: the character has 4 attacks, each of which can only hit on a 20. You're arguing that there's only a 1 in 160000 chance of him connecting on all four (quite correct) and so the damage should be very much reduced. I'm saying that there's a 1 in 5 chance of him hitting on at least one attack - the probability of all 4 attacks missing is 0.81). </p><p></p><p>Let's take the example of a character with 4 attacks who would ordinarily hit on a 1 if 1 were not an automatic miss. So she hits on 1, 6, 11, and 16. The probability of <strong>all</strong> her secondary attacks missing is 9%.</p><p></p><p>Consider the example of a character who hits on 11 and 16 - 50% chance and 25% chance. The probability of both attacks missing is 0.375. 3/8. That means that there's a 5/8 chance of <em>at least one</em> attack hitting.</p><p></p><p>The bonus I suggest adding to the to hit and damage is less than sum of the to hit bonuses and the sum of the extra damage that successful secondary attacks would typically do.</p><p></p><p>Moreover, this is quick and simple, operates at all levels, and provides a trade-off for the loss of the move action.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quartz, post: 3608502, member: 40552"] Not sure how I missed that but I think you're significantly misapplying the probabilities. The chance of succeeding blows actually connecting indeed, as you say, lessens, but the chance of [i]at least one[/i] of the blows actually connecting increases dramatically. Let's take the extreme example: the character has 4 attacks, each of which can only hit on a 20. You're arguing that there's only a 1 in 160000 chance of him connecting on all four (quite correct) and so the damage should be very much reduced. I'm saying that there's a 1 in 5 chance of him hitting on at least one attack - the probability of all 4 attacks missing is 0.81). Let's take the example of a character with 4 attacks who would ordinarily hit on a 1 if 1 were not an automatic miss. So she hits on 1, 6, 11, and 16. The probability of [b]all[/b] her secondary attacks missing is 9%. Consider the example of a character who hits on 11 and 16 - 50% chance and 25% chance. The probability of both attacks missing is 0.375. 3/8. That means that there's a 5/8 chance of [i]at least one[/i] attack hitting. The bonus I suggest adding to the to hit and damage is less than sum of the to hit bonuses and the sum of the extra damage that successful secondary attacks would typically do. Moreover, this is quick and simple, operates at all levels, and provides a trade-off for the loss of the move action. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
No Iterative Attacks in D&D
Top