NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James McMurray" data-source="post: 4743924" data-attributes="member: 743">Your pure math is incomplete. I don't know if it's my writing, your reading, or a combination of the two, but what I'm trying to tell you isn't getting across. Lemme try an example.We've got a monster. It has a +30 to hit vs. Will. We'll call this monster Mr. +30.We've got two PCs. One has a 32 Will Defense, the other a 29. We'll call them 32W and 29W.When +30 attacks 32W, it needs a 2 to hit. When +30 attacks 29W, it needs a 2 to hit (because a 1 always misses).Now we'll bump the PCs up by 4, and change their names to match. When +30 attacks 36W, it needs a 6 to hit. When +30 attacks 33W, it only needs a 3 to hit.Does that explain it better?As I pointed out earlier, it's a combination of conditions that are too good at shutting down actions, monster defenses that are too high to hit reliably, and monster hit points that are too numerous to take out quickly.So if stunning could only happen once per combat per attacker, would that be better?Your math isn't worthless, it's just not as useful as you think, partly because it is incomplete in modeling attacks vs. defenses (as shown above), and partly because it only models a tiny fraction of the game system, then tries to draw generalized conclusions.Yes, though I'll point out that there's no such thing as autohit.They'll stop the 95% hit rate, yes. At least in those instance where they bump your defense high enough that the monster needs a 3+ instead of a 2.Do you mean all the time, or as a general rule? If it's supposed to be all the time, then no way is 75% a good number. If it's general, that seems about right.See above.For one, there's never an autohit, so the NADs matter. Second, the conditions themselves keep  cropping up as the bad guy, yet it's apparently the math's fault. Monsters need to be able to deal damage to be a threat. Monsters don't need constant use of action inhibiting conditions to be a threat. Adding a rule that makes the already low damage monsters deal less average damage lowers the only "fun" threat they've got.Source?Definitely. But "things happen every round in a fight because monsters can hit easily" isn't the problem. The problem is a subset of those things which are happening, and lowering the overall occurrence of hits lowers the good and the bad equally.I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but there's a lot of opinion in it, so I'll just agree to disagree on what is "best."You're laying out very concrete numbers in what looks like an attempt to describe a general scenario. Is this meant as an example, or an average found through data sampling?Check out Adventurer's Vault. Then I guess we're done, since my math + experience doesn't change your mind any more than your math + experience will change mine.Have fun!</blockquote>

Verification