Warlord: STR-primary, not so much...

[Obryn]

Depends on how you think about it. If you need an 11 to hit (50% chance), then a +1 to hit increases your number of successes by 10%. It also increases your damage by some amount beyond that.

I actually do think that is the more correct way to think about it.

Good call, I don't generally consider it that way. I usually consider each die roll as a separate event, rather than comparing series.

According to the Monster Manual, you need to hit AC 48 to hit Orcus. An extra +1 from str is a little more than a 2% increase in chance to hit, mathematically speaking. It's only 5% if your opponent's actual AC is 20.

No, you're always rolling a d20 + modifiers. Each 1 point on a d20 is, by definition, a 5% shift. You are not rolling a d48 + modifiers.

If Orcus has a 48 AC, and you have a +37 to-hit, you will hit him 50% of the time, needing a die roll of 11 or higher. If you have a +38 to-hit instead (the +1 bonus), you will hit him 55% of the time, on a die roll of 10 or higher. If you have a +39, 60%, on a 9 or higher. And so on.

-O

 

[cmbarona]

... Thanks for the apology, and apology accepted, but my general experience is that it's usually bad form to immediately follow an apology with an insult, even if in jest...

I'll assume you know what I actually meant by "statistically trained psychologist."

 

[keterys]

If Orcus has a 48 AC, and you have a +37 to-hit, you will hit him 50% of the time, needing a die roll of 11 or higher. If you have a +38 to-hit instead (the +1 bonus), you will hit him 55% of the time, on a die roll of 10 or higher. If you have a +39, 60%, on a 9 or higher. And so on.

Yep, and to do an interesting spin:

Let's say that it takes a 5-PC group 20 successful hits to drop their enemy/ies (whoever those enemies are), and that those enem(y/ies) will do enough to 'permanently' drop someone every 2 rounds after the 5th (7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, and winning on the 15th round).

Base assumption of 50% hit means that you get 2.5 hits per round in the first 6 rounds, 2 per in 7th and 8th, and in the 9th round you win (and maybe lose a 2nd person, depending on init)

If you instead have only a 40% hit, you'd get 2 hits per round in the first 6 rounds, 1.6 in 7+8, 1.2 in 9+10, .8 in 11+12, .4 in 13 and 14... and Orcus is defeated with a single guy still standing a single hit from being truly dropped.

In the first situation, a little bit of bad luck might drop another person or two, but it would be recoverable. In the second situation, even a smidge of bad luck is a TPK. Doesn't mean the 2nd is badwrongfun, but it does mean that when these kinds of threads come up in forums that the general response is 'No, it really is important'

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'll assume you know what I actually meant by "statistically trained psychologist."

I don't know what that means, FWIW... Hey, you brought it up. I'm intrigued now... Is that just another way of saying, "I'm a psychologist trained in statistics"?

 

[cmbarona]

Yup. The short answer: psychology uses tons of statistics in their research, so psychologists need to know statistics.

The long answer:

1) Psychology deals a lot with concepts called "hypothetical constructs." Take one of these constructs for example: let's say, inhibition. It's hypothetical because it can't be measured. You can measure a lot of things that point to it, however: how likely a person is to say a socially inappropriate comment before and after drinking alcohol, for example.

2) Because of these hypothetical constructs, a lot of psychology research has to use statistics. There is no 100% in psychology, as there might be in some cases in other sciences. Because of this lack of 100%, we use statistics to measure the likelihood of a theory. There is only likelihood in psychology, not certainty.

3) Because of this aspect of psychology, statistics is a bigger focus for us than for many other fields. Psychologists therefore have made their own mark on the field of statistics by sheer necessity. One of my friends was a statistics major, and he was surprised at just how much of statistics was not invented by strict mathemeticians, but by psychologists needing to design their studies. I have to take his word for it, since I only really studied the stuff I need for psychological research, but I do believe he's accurate in his assessment.

By "statistically trained psychologist," I did mean for research purposes. Statistics should fuel the field's application of assessment and treatment. Say, for example, we need to research two things: is old treatment A for a phobia really better than new treatment B? We can only answer that question based on statistics.

Sorry, this has been a long tangent. It's just a pet peeve of mine to hear people mock a concept based on how it sounds rather than ask what it means.

 

[Nail]

Thread derail:

<"statistically trained psychologist" explanation> Cool.

Still, there should be a "better" name for that.

 

[cmbarona]

Lol, fair enough. It's not an official name or anything, though, just how I chose to say "I'm a psychologist, and therefore trained in statistics" at the time. Glad you liked the explanation, though.

 

[Rafe]

This conversation keep happening in the game I DM:

Warlord: Okay, I'm going to use X ability. You get to do Y effect!
Ally: Awesome!
Warlord: *rolls* Oh... oh... nevermind... I missed.
Ally: Awww...

Yeah, this happens a great deal to the Warlord in our group. We all sympathize as there's nothing in 4e worse than using up a Daily at first or second level only to roll a 2 or 3. (Well, death is worse, I suppose...)

The Tactical Warlord in our group is 17 Str and 18 Int. As for the general comment about a 1 point differential really mattering when rolling... it's mattered quite a few times in our games, for all the players. I think most people know the feeling of being 1 short and trying to find any bonuses he or she may have missed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My original point was that there were more than a couple warlord powers that didn't have that problem. Take Pin the Foe as a daily. You use it, you hit or you miss, doing some good damage if you hit. But, whether you hit or not, the victim he can't shift, at all - played right, through the end of the encounter.

I'm aware there aren't a /lot/ of such powers, but between them, a feat like Hammer Rythm or Scimitar Dance (or some other on-a-miss trick) and multiclasing to swap out the few levels of powers with no good options for powers that use some other stat you are heavily invested in, it seems like you could get away with skimping on (though, hopefully not actually dumping) STR.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yep, and to do an interesting spin:

Let's say that it takes a 5-PC group 20 successful hits to drop their enemy/ies (whoever those enemies are), and that those enem(y/ies) will do enough to 'permanently' drop someone every 2 rounds after the 5th (7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, and winning on the 15th round).

Base assumption of 50% hit means that you get 2.5 hits per round in the first 6 rounds, 2 per in 7th and 8th, and in the 9th round you win (and maybe lose a 2nd person, depending on init)

If you instead have only a 40% hit, you'd get 2 hits per round in the first 6 rounds, 1.6 in 7+8, 1.2 in 9+10, .8 in 11+12, .4 in 13 and 14... and Orcus is defeated with a single guy still standing a single hit from being truly dropped.

In the first situation, a little bit of bad luck might drop another person or two, but it would be recoverable. In the second situation, even a smidge of bad luck is a TPK. Doesn't mean the 2nd is badwrongfun, but it does mean that when these kinds of threads come up in forums that the general response is 'No, it really is important'

This horse is dead guys...

it always depends how you look at it...

here it is important that your chance to hit increases by 5% so each round your chance to get the desired on-hit-effect only increases by 5%...

in the long run over many many days, when you only count hits, and you assume about 50% base chance, you will see about 10% more hits...