Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The mathematics of D&D–Damage and HP
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="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8227389" data-attributes="member: 93670"><p>All good points & I'm glad that the thread didn't die after you posted that <em>(very bad)</em> chart back in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-mathematics-of-d-d%E2%80%93damage-and-hp.678782/post-8222641" target="_blank">75</a> like it looked. You can't model damage over time with different hit rates using one line. The chart would need one line for each % chance to hit unless you are modeling something misleading or hard to visualize like damage over a specific number of rounds. I think it was probably a well meaning mistake rather than an attempt at obfuscation through "lies damn lies and statistics" though so moving on <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>The data below assumes +5 to relevant stat for both caster & martial. The <em>specific</em> damage type is irrelevant as it's easier to just model one with resistance & one without just as +1 +2 +1d6 weapons are easier to give their own lines. I'm going to give the martial the best odds to prove 5e still plunges into LFQW rather than inverting it though & say that the caster is using a d12 cantrip like toll the dead & the martial a d10 weapon like a longsword rather than modeling every possible choice.</p><p></p><p>I'm not going to make a pretty graph but I'll save others time & attach the sheet below</p><p>at 100% hit rate, right away you can see that the numbers aren't even close to supporting LFQW & at least with 100% hit rate/0% save chance it's <em>massively</em> inverted[spoiler="math numbers"]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]134464[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]134465[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>..</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[/spoiler]</p><p>Those numbers are <strong><span style="font-size: 22px">massively</span></strong> skewed to an eye popping degree because every <em>attack</em> the longsword deals +5 from the relevant attrib <em>and</em> an <u><em>extra</em></u> +1 +2 or +3 while the cantrip never adds +5 from the relevant attrib and <em>never</em> adds the +1 +2 or +3 more than once per round</p><p></p><p>This next set is the same numbers with a 75% hit chance & 25% save chance. Since this is played out over rounds I don't need to model it by fiddling with average damage & can just show an accumulation of the numbers that actually deal damage. every third attack will miss & every fourth cantrip will save for none. Frankly the numbers at 100% are so bad that I questioned if there was even a point but decided to do it anyways for the sake of people who are struggling with the math (which is fine if someone is having trouble keeping up).</p><p>[spoiler="math numbers @75%/25% 2 attacks & 2d12"]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]134472[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]134473[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[/spoiler]The first round of longsword data assumes there was a miss then every fourth attack or cast is a miss or save. That first round inverted for the cantrip with the first round assuming no save just because it was easier to model that way. Since this is showing damage over time in rounds it doesn't really matter.</p><p>The numbers are so stark that I'm not going to model what happens with only one attack with 75% hitrate & will jump straight to</p><p>[spoiler="2 attacks/2d12 with a 50%"]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]134470[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]134471[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[/spoiler]</p><p></p><p>at 50% the numbers are still horriffic & show just how much leveled spells need to bring to the table. If leveled spells were available in dramatically higher amounts that would be easy, but the numbers are so grossly out of wack that they need to be things like "every fireball hits the max number of targets and they mostly fail their saves" to bridge the gap because you can't cast a cantrip+a spell like you can attack+sneakattack or attack+action surge & already leveled spells barely just kinda break even rather than pull ahead</p><p></p><p>I tried to stack the deck in favor of showing LFQW was still a thing as much as possible & my reasoning was because for whatever reason Wotc chose to have both higher damage and more attacks on the weapon side of weapon to cantrip damage so the damage won't ever invert even if you get to very low hit rates. Paradoxically Wotc took that inverted LFQW one step further with the bewildering damage resistance magic resistance ac's almost guaranteed to hit excessive concentration use often unused by design spells & legendary resistance situation. If DR were still a thing on more than a handful of almost never used plant creatures or vulnerability to energy types were quite common there could conceivably be situations where the cantrip user would pull ahead but that's not the case either</p><p></p><p>edit:I originally flubbed the sheet by including strength looking at it & saying "oh I left out strength" to add it again</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8227389, member: 93670"] All good points & I'm glad that the thread didn't die after you posted that [I](very bad)[/I] chart back in [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-mathematics-of-d-d%E2%80%93damage-and-hp.678782/post-8222641']75[/URL] like it looked. You can't model damage over time with different hit rates using one line. The chart would need one line for each % chance to hit unless you are modeling something misleading or hard to visualize like damage over a specific number of rounds. I think it was probably a well meaning mistake rather than an attempt at obfuscation through "lies damn lies and statistics" though so moving on :D The data below assumes +5 to relevant stat for both caster & martial. The [I]specific[/I] damage type is irrelevant as it's easier to just model one with resistance & one without just as +1 +2 +1d6 weapons are easier to give their own lines. I'm going to give the martial the best odds to prove 5e still plunges into LFQW rather than inverting it though & say that the caster is using a d12 cantrip like toll the dead & the martial a d10 weapon like a longsword rather than modeling every possible choice. I'm not going to make a pretty graph but I'll save others time & attach the sheet below at 100% hit rate, right away you can see that the numbers aren't even close to supporting LFQW & at least with 100% hit rate/0% save chance it's [I]massively[/I] inverted[spoiler="math numbers"] [ATTACH type="full"]134464[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]134465[/ATTACH] .. [/spoiler] Those numbers are [B][SIZE=6]massively[/SIZE][/B] skewed to an eye popping degree because every [I]attack[/I] the longsword deals +5 from the relevant attrib [I]and[/I] an [U][I]extra[/I][/U] +1 +2 or +3 while the cantrip never adds +5 from the relevant attrib and [I]never[/I] adds the +1 +2 or +3 more than once per round This next set is the same numbers with a 75% hit chance & 25% save chance. Since this is played out over rounds I don't need to model it by fiddling with average damage & can just show an accumulation of the numbers that actually deal damage. every third attack will miss & every fourth cantrip will save for none. Frankly the numbers at 100% are so bad that I questioned if there was even a point but decided to do it anyways for the sake of people who are struggling with the math (which is fine if someone is having trouble keeping up). [spoiler="math numbers @75%/25% 2 attacks & 2d12"] [ATTACH type="full"]134472[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]134473[/ATTACH] [/spoiler]The first round of longsword data assumes there was a miss then every fourth attack or cast is a miss or save. That first round inverted for the cantrip with the first round assuming no save just because it was easier to model that way. Since this is showing damage over time in rounds it doesn't really matter. The numbers are so stark that I'm not going to model what happens with only one attack with 75% hitrate & will jump straight to [spoiler="2 attacks/2d12 with a 50%"] [ATTACH type="full"]134470[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]134471[/ATTACH] [/spoiler] at 50% the numbers are still horriffic & show just how much leveled spells need to bring to the table. If leveled spells were available in dramatically higher amounts that would be easy, but the numbers are so grossly out of wack that they need to be things like "every fireball hits the max number of targets and they mostly fail their saves" to bridge the gap because you can't cast a cantrip+a spell like you can attack+sneakattack or attack+action surge & already leveled spells barely just kinda break even rather than pull ahead I tried to stack the deck in favor of showing LFQW was still a thing as much as possible & my reasoning was because for whatever reason Wotc chose to have both higher damage and more attacks on the weapon side of weapon to cantrip damage so the damage won't ever invert even if you get to very low hit rates. Paradoxically Wotc took that inverted LFQW one step further with the bewildering damage resistance magic resistance ac's almost guaranteed to hit excessive concentration use often unused by design spells & legendary resistance situation. If DR were still a thing on more than a handful of almost never used plant creatures or vulnerability to energy types were quite common there could conceivably be situations where the cantrip user would pull ahead but that's not the case either edit:I originally flubbed the sheet by including strength looking at it & saying "oh I left out strength" to add it again [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The mathematics of D&D–Damage and HP
Top