Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SBMC" data-source="post: 2496900" data-attributes="member: 30040">First - most people when they respond include most of the post so that readers can see the context  Lets go over this again:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I posted, in response to one of our posts:  Noting that I also stated in the same post:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You replied with: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Then I replied with --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now your last reply:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So lets explore this one: #1 I state that you would effectively roll the dice 16 times before making a critical (eluding to rolls 17-20 being crits) #2 You reply that that is irrelevant - " A single die has uniform distribution"  #3 I state that I was talking about effectively rolling the dice 16 times before making a critical (eluding to rolls 17-20 being crits) #4 You reply "What does that have to with the difference between a uniform distribution and a bell curve?" Who is talking about a uniform distribution and/versus a bell curve? I did not.=====================================================================  Again - I say that you should read more on game theory. This is the exact same idea as gambling in part with the exception that there is not a finite capacity for the "player" or the "house" (which is one reason I suggested using average encounters and average attacks)  Let me rephrase: Each individual roll is individual unto itself- put them together and you have a curve. Waiting for that curve to form is where I do not believe that Improved Critical outshines Weapon Specialization - an immeasurable, intrinsic point. ===================================================================== How can you say you read my post based upon your responses? Based upon the cherry picking of statements taken out of context? Your content is not flawed necessarily - it is the framwwork with which I take issue. ===================================================================== See below===================================================================== What your telling me is that an additional, on top of normal damage 4% of total HP is irrelevant? Over rounds, perhaps multiple attacks? Will 2 points fell them - of course not. Will it be 2 points closer to felling them yes; how many non critical single attacks have you seen kill an opponent over 5th level? I used the fighters hit points as an example only; replace it with whatever you choose and do the math. I think most rational folks get the point. This is another example of you taking things out of context and ignoring the obvious - targeting choice of words and not content.  As far as encounters go; that is obvious and known to all.===================================================================== And thus you made my point just above - that you stated as being " All small percentages. In other words, that extra +2 won't fell them, unless there have been other hits. Therefore, it is the aggregate of many hits rather than a single roll that matters." My point was, and I quote myself: There was more to follow in that section I posted; but not relevant here at the moment.===================================================================== And is this actually incorporated into your numbers or not? If it is my apologies; if not?===================================================================== Very good - you see the words as written and respond to them. Ignoring the actual context.===================================================================== You just did above…lets investigate again: I posted: Then you posted I replied: Then you posted: With the relevant part being: And the answer is - the opposite is true for the insurance company versus the insured! Good to see you were able to pull that point out of there. Now…lets see I was trying to make a metaphor using a perspective of insurance (as it is familiar to many and thus, as metaphor's do in these circumstances aids in communicating) and my original point was…OH YA! That the +2 is a guarantee payoff every time…lets see the connection here…Improved Critical only has a chance to happen not a guarantee…so if I take Weapon Specialization I have a guaranteed payoff every time…do I really need to flow this into your posts? I think most can see this - if you can't then I would seriously consider getting a social life outside of the internet. And again another example of attacking words and taking things out of context ===================================================================== I just addressed this above - and yes you did just support my point above.=====================================================================Ok I see…sure...I won't bother listing this one out there is plenty above and below.===================================================================== Please explain here why that is even important? It was a statement made in context with the rest of the surrounding words, which are, by the way (including the portion of the post it was in response to):  So lets see here - in English that would mean the context was to state, simply, over time random events create a bell curve…hmmm a tough concept to pull out of there.=====================================================================Are we done now Mr. Orsal or are you still all focused on tearing up words - are you a lawyer or law student by the way? Because lawyers are very good and yanking out irrelevant semantics and touting them as fact and things they are not; they are also very good at taking a particular piece of evidence (in this case words) and separating it from everything around it and beating it to death; since they can't do it with the support of the context; or at least it is much harder. As a matter of fact perhaps the evidence would be irrelevant otherwise.I never once stated, and as a matter of act stated it was not, that my choice noted would be supported by numbers. I stated that I felt it was a "better choice" in my OPINION because of the guaranteed 2 points of damage versus the random effects of obtaining a critical hit.</blockquote>

Verification