Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6591033" data-attributes="member: 37579">My math isn't good enough to really get the *exact* numbers down, but I am mostly aware of what you describe. Each modification of a d20 roll is a 5% variation, so a +3 AC bonus is 15%. But, as is demonstrated in your math, the +3 AC has no impact on the attacks that are already misses. All the AC bonuses in the world have no mathematical impact if the attacker rolls a 2. So it really only varies the hit percentage, the percentage of rolls that would hit. Since you can ignore half the rolls that are not impacted, it moves from 15% to 30% (give or take). But, since the +1 = 5% math is fairly common knowledge, and the above is complicated and requires a lengthy post to explain, I find it easier to ignore and go with the more commonly accepted (yet less accurate) math. Otherwise people will go &quot;whaaaaa...?&quot; and auto-ignore the argument based on a hastily perceived math error. At least when (as in this case) the difference between 15% and 33% is irrelevant to the argument. The 15% reduction to hit rates was already better than damage soaking, so pointing out it would actually be 30-odd% and *even better* while risking incomprehension was unneeded.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6591033, member: 37579"] My math isn't good enough to really get the *exact* numbers down, but I am mostly aware of what you describe. Each modification of a d20 roll is a 5% variation, so a +3 AC bonus is 15%. But, as is demonstrated in your math, the +3 AC has no impact on the attacks that are already misses. All the AC bonuses in the world have no mathematical impact if the attacker rolls a 2. So it really only varies the hit percentage, the percentage of rolls that would hit. Since you can ignore half the rolls that are not impacted, it moves from 15% to 30% (give or take). But, since the +1 = 5% math is fairly common knowledge, and the above is complicated and requires a lengthy post to explain, I find it easier to ignore and go with the more commonly accepted (yet less accurate) math. Otherwise people will go "whaaaaa...?" and auto-ignore the argument based on a hastily perceived math error. At least when (as in this case) the difference between 15% and 33% is irrelevant to the argument. The 15% reduction to hit rates was already better than damage soaking, so pointing out it would actually be 30-odd% and *even better* while risking incomprehension was unneeded. [/QUOTE]

Verification