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 Overkill Damage Fallacy
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7618476" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>It took me a bit to figure out what you did to get it, but I did recreate your numbers. First, let me explain what I understand you did so we're on the same page.</p><p></p><p>The above charts look only at the chance that the PC kills the target in that round. For the single big attack, it's straighforward enough. You kill it or you don't. The cases are round 1 hit, round 1 miss round 2 hit, round 1&2 miss round 3 hit, and so on.</p><p></p><p>The second case has more cases to consider, and these expand rapidly per round. You still kept the analysis at the single point where PC 2 kills the creature in that round. So, on round 2, you consider the case for round 1 - 2 misses and round 2 - 2 hits, round 1 - 1 hit and round 2 - 1 hit and 1 hit round 2, and, finally, round 1 - 1 hit and round 2 - 2 hits. And so on. </p><p></p><p>However, in both cases, I think you've made an error in analysis. Each round should have the cumulative chance that the creature is killed in that round or in any previous round, not just the chance that the target is killed in that round. You're essentially ignoring all the cases where the killing is done already. But, let me drop some illustrations first.</p><p></p><p>Here is 3 rounds of expanded hit cases and associated odds for each for PC 1:</p><p>[ATTACH]106948[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>And here is the same for PC 2:</p><p>[ATTACH]106949[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>You can see that the column marked % Kill the round shows the numbers you presented. The column marked % Kill Overall is the total odds at the end of each round that the PC is standing over a dead body. As you can see, PC 1 is ahead in rounds 1 and 2, but starts to lag behind in round 3. This continues, although it remains close, because the number of successful kill cases for the 2 attack character grows faster. This is why there is a larger delta in round 1, where PC 2 has 1 kill case out of 4 and PC 1 has 1 kill case out of 2, and almost none in 3 and four due to the similarity in kill cases. Past 3 rounds, the % Kill Overall is essentially 1 for both characters.</p><p></p><p>So, overall, your average rounds to first kill seems a bit wonky, as it's ignoring the odds of a previous round resulting in a kill already. I'm not sure that your number tells us anything, and, honestly, I'm not sure you can just add up your percentages to get to an average time to first kill. The extended results above, though, do suggest that the single big hitter will kill first, and possible more often. I crunched some more numbers to look at this in a case where there's always at least one more foe to attack. So, over 3 rounds:</p><p></p><p>PC 1 kills none 6% of the time, 1 29% of the time, 2 43% of the time, and 3 22% of the time. This is an 'at least 1' of 94% and an at least 2 of 65%.</p><p>PC 2 kills none 4% of the time, 1 41% of the time, 2 50% of the time, and 3 5% of the time. This is an 'at least 1' of 96% and an at least 2 of 55%</p><p></p><p>It's very interesting, I'd say. The single big attack spends more time at the ends than the multiple attacks and less time in the middle. What's also interesting is that the average damage output per round for both PCs remains constant and equal -- as you might expect. This was one of my primary checks for my maths - did I maintain expected average damage per round?</p><p></p><p>And, all of this is using your numbers. Some have advanced this use case is maximized for the big hitter based on target hp, but the analysis is stable for all x less than 9 and greater than 4. Until you get into the hp that PC 1 can't kill with 1 hit or into hp that PC 2 can kill with one hit, the numbers don't change. However, if you use different numbers, the analysis will change. This assumes that big hit precises doubles little hit, and that's not a valid assumption, nor is it valid that big hit will always kill and little will not. Different cases may yield very different outcomes. It should be possible to build an expanded case chart that could handle very different numbers, but it would take more work than I've done so far (a good bit) so unless there's a lot of interest, I'm not going to try.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7618476, member: 16814"] It took me a bit to figure out what you did to get it, but I did recreate your numbers. First, let me explain what I understand you did so we're on the same page. The above charts look only at the chance that the PC kills the target in that round. For the single big attack, it's straighforward enough. You kill it or you don't. The cases are round 1 hit, round 1 miss round 2 hit, round 1&2 miss round 3 hit, and so on. The second case has more cases to consider, and these expand rapidly per round. You still kept the analysis at the single point where PC 2 kills the creature in that round. So, on round 2, you consider the case for round 1 - 2 misses and round 2 - 2 hits, round 1 - 1 hit and round 2 - 1 hit and 1 hit round 2, and, finally, round 1 - 1 hit and round 2 - 2 hits. And so on. However, in both cases, I think you've made an error in analysis. Each round should have the cumulative chance that the creature is killed in that round or in any previous round, not just the chance that the target is killed in that round. You're essentially ignoring all the cases where the killing is done already. But, let me drop some illustrations first. Here is 3 rounds of expanded hit cases and associated odds for each for PC 1: [ATTACH=CONFIG]106948._xfImport[/ATTACH] And here is the same for PC 2: [ATTACH=CONFIG]106949._xfImport[/ATTACH] You can see that the column marked % Kill the round shows the numbers you presented. The column marked % Kill Overall is the total odds at the end of each round that the PC is standing over a dead body. As you can see, PC 1 is ahead in rounds 1 and 2, but starts to lag behind in round 3. This continues, although it remains close, because the number of successful kill cases for the 2 attack character grows faster. This is why there is a larger delta in round 1, where PC 2 has 1 kill case out of 4 and PC 1 has 1 kill case out of 2, and almost none in 3 and four due to the similarity in kill cases. Past 3 rounds, the % Kill Overall is essentially 1 for both characters. So, overall, your average rounds to first kill seems a bit wonky, as it's ignoring the odds of a previous round resulting in a kill already. I'm not sure that your number tells us anything, and, honestly, I'm not sure you can just add up your percentages to get to an average time to first kill. The extended results above, though, do suggest that the single big hitter will kill first, and possible more often. I crunched some more numbers to look at this in a case where there's always at least one more foe to attack. So, over 3 rounds: PC 1 kills none 6% of the time, 1 29% of the time, 2 43% of the time, and 3 22% of the time. This is an 'at least 1' of 94% and an at least 2 of 65%. PC 2 kills none 4% of the time, 1 41% of the time, 2 50% of the time, and 3 5% of the time. This is an 'at least 1' of 96% and an at least 2 of 55% It's very interesting, I'd say. The single big attack spends more time at the ends than the multiple attacks and less time in the middle. What's also interesting is that the average damage output per round for both PCs remains constant and equal -- as you might expect. This was one of my primary checks for my maths - did I maintain expected average damage per round? And, all of this is using your numbers. Some have advanced this use case is maximized for the big hitter based on target hp, but the analysis is stable for all x less than 9 and greater than 4. Until you get into the hp that PC 1 can't kill with 1 hit or into hp that PC 2 can kill with one hit, the numbers don't change. However, if you use different numbers, the analysis will change. This assumes that big hit precises doubles little hit, and that's not a valid assumption, nor is it valid that big hit will always kill and little will not. Different cases may yield very different outcomes. It should be possible to build an expanded case chart that could handle very different numbers, but it would take more work than I've done so far (a good bit) so unless there's a lot of interest, I'm not going to try. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Overkill Damage Fallacy
Top