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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 729799" data-attributes="member: 3146">I think that the point he's making is that rapid shot does much more than increase the possibility of hitting with ONE arrow. It also grants the possibility of hitting with two arrows (and in most situations I've experienced as a player, it's more like a foregone conclusion than a possibility). Thus it has an exponential effect on average damage per round which is different from the effect of a simple increase in the possibility of hitting once that doesn't hold out the possibility of hitting twice (weapon focus is an example of this).To use a simple example, take A. a single attack which hits 60% of the time for an average of 10 points of damage. Compare that to the following:B. 2 attacks that deal an average of ten points of damage each--both of which hit 50% of the time. (equivalent to rapid shot)C. A single attack which hits 75% of the time for an average of 10 points of damage. (equivalent to a +3 bonus to hit in this case)Hit frequencyA. Hits 60% of the timeB. Hits at least once 75% of the time; hits twice 25% of the time.C. Hits 75% of the timeAverage Damage Per RoundA. 6 pointsB. 10 pointsC. 7.5 pointsBoth options B and C increase the chance of hitting to 75% of the time but because option B offers the chance of hitting twice, it yields 33% more average damage per round than option C.My understanding of the criticism is that Sean's analysis focusses on the chance of hitting and doesn't adequately deal with the exponential increase of average damage per round.Unlike Sean, it appears that the previous poster and I both believe that average damage per round rather than chance of hitting is the relevant factor WRT balance. You appear to understand this distinction but I thought I'd spell the criticism of Sean's position out more clearly.</blockquote>

Verification