Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SBMC" data-source="post: 2495857" data-attributes="member: 30040"> Ho, hum...20% chance to make a critical; not an actual hit.   I had already conceded in earlier posts that my choices could very well, over time or not, be less advantageous than others - and that they are indeed not based on numbers but by preference - in response to the original post that started the thread. "Retreat": Interesting choice of words; not intended to insult but intended to take the other readers to a particular frame of thought before you continue. A move that is really unnecessary. And when you toss numbers at me exactly how would you like me to respond? And what exactly is wrong with saying 4 out of 20 equals 20%? And you numbers are not correct; you forgot important variables in your formulas. You could knowingly ignore of course - you'll see them below.  Read the post again - I said 16 rolls directly and implied 20 rolls. Looks like you were trying to pull the words apart and not listen to the message - a message that does not even argue to your points directly.  And that points to the fact you did not read my post; simply attempted to make me a victim of semantics and that you really don't know what I am talking about - I stated CLEARLY - MICRO. Meaning each individual iteration NOT the combination thereof. You intentionally ignored that point in order to make your own; why not make your own not at my expense?  That +2 would actually be 80% of the time. The +4 would be 20% of the time. Fine; change the example; +10 20% of the time - my point stays the same and it is a point of rational choice in addition to being backed in micro terms - not in all cases but this is my personal opinion you are touting as if I had stated it is the way everyone should go and it was backed with hard evidence - recall the multiple insertions I made of "IMO" or "opinion" in my posts? Most likely not since it is clear you did not read it; yet chose to reply to it; I'll leave it at that; anyone here with an maturity sees where I am going.  And over the course of an entire campaign you could easily get BOTH feats as a fighter. Not to mention you cannot get Improved Critical until 8th level - THAT IS ONE OF THE MISSING FACTORS. In reality all of your calculations are irrelevant from level 4 (where you can get Weapon Specialization) to level 7. Then at level 8 you can gain Improved Critical as well. If you took both y level 8 the point of this is all moot. Thus; to be realistic; your calculations should not even start until level 8 is reached.  But then again why is this even important or relevant? Well you asked for it: I note you ignored my point regarding 2 HP of damage at lower levels versus higher levels You are all calculating the probability of a particular roll(s) over time and iterations. In mathematical terms the roll, in reality, is not relevant as it is in gambling - the benefit of the roll is. Why? Because it is not, as all of your calculations state, a 1 or 0 ending result. I am not going to spend my time doing this but feel free if you want to:You need to build a scale - a scale that determines the value of 2 HP of damage versus the critical damage taken and the probabilities. Ya see at 8th level, for example, the average fighter has 45 HP (no CON modifiers). 2/45 = 4.444444% At 9th level: 50 HP50/2: 4.00% At 10th level: 55 HP55/2: 3.636363% Ya'all get my point here? I hope so after seeing the calculations you have all done. The lower your level the more valuable that +2 is given the HP's of the creatures you are facing. Versus Improved Crit; who knows; you do the math. Also - You all currently have an infinite number of iterations possible yet wish to communicate the result within the confines of averages within the game. Thus you should be utilizing the average attack rolls per encounter times the average encounters to determine this - not just open ended probability. Thus your parameters are fixed within averages as are the probabilities per roll: Within the confines of X rolls I have he probability of rolling a critical… You will see how that changes things drastically. Like I said I am not doing this out (and to note for Mr. Orsal; Yes I can; quite well) as I have no interest in doing so - especially since I know all of you who love mathematics will start to work on that ASAP and do I for me! :--)  Really - explain further without regurgitating a textbook word for word for me would you please; in your own words. And please explain this to me from the Insurance companies point of view? Oh…you would no want to do that since it would support the point I was making which again, like many of my earlier statements you commented on in a similar fashion, was just an example to foster a comparison of perspective not mathematics - and unless you are completely daft you knew that.  "Come to naught" - then so would the Critical; a wash numericly.  Unlikely? Your, and everyone elses, basis is on probabilities. This is no more probable than any other set combination of results that is similar. No matter how you do it the numbers will, in the long run, represent a bell curve and everyone here knows it - and we are all talking about actual hits not necessarily rolls of the die - again; attacking the words; for what purpose? How all that comes to be over time and iterations is pure chance - read game theory.</blockquote>

Verification