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

[Nail]

Intelligence doesn't add to initiative (unless you take the paragon feat that let's a warlord use their Int or Cha bonus instead of the normal +2 initiative that warlords give).

I assume that's a given.

I don't.

Nor do I.

It's a poor assumption, especially given that some people mistakenly assume a Warlord's Int normally affects initiative.

 

[Stalker0]

Intelligence doesn't add to initiative (unless you take the paragon feat that let's a warlord use their Int or Cha bonus instead of the normal +2 initiative that warlords give).

Just an honest mistake guys when I was writing, I know the rule....no need for a 5 post discussion!

I think int warlords still need strength, but they are a class where if a person but a higher int than they did strength I wouldn't think that was bad, especially if they push their int to 18 so the action point bonus is +2. With abilities like commander's strike where the warlord doesn't even need strength (wish more classes had this kind of at will), and powers that have really good secondaries based on strength, the warlord can get it done with a high int and a moderate strength.

Is he going to miss more? Absolutely. But when he does hit, he's getting more bang for his buck, and that's a perfectly valid way to play.

 

[Obryn]

Correct. As a rule of thumb (assumed 50% hit chance) the +1 is actually a +10% difference.

No, it's almost never a 5% change in probability. It's always a 5 percentage points change, but there's a huge difference between percents and percentage points

Depends on your attack bonus. If you have a +31 to attack an extra +1 would increase your change to hit by 33%, that's a lot.

The actual AC is unimportant. Whether or not the +1 happen to coincide with 5% depends on the difference between your attack bonus and the opponent's AC.

With the D&D system it's actually impossibe for the 5 percentage points increase to ever be a 5 percent increase.

You would get that if you hit on 2-20 without the increase and on 1-20 with the increase. As you can never hit on a 1 it can't happen in D&D.

The closes the 5 percentage point increase gets to also being a 5 percent increase is if you hit on 3-20 without the increase and on 2-20 with the increase. In this case the 5 percentage points increase is also a 5.8 percernt increase. That's the closest to them being equal you can get in D&D


PS: To make the 5 percentage points truly equal 5.0 percent you would need to hit on 1 to 20 without the increase and on -1 to 20 after the increase. Something you can't get on a D20 anyway.

So basically you're looking at X numbers being a possible success on a d20, adding Y to the pool of possible successes through bonuses, and just taking Y/(X+Y) to determine the % increase from a bonus?

That's one way of doing it, absolutely. We've been more or less talking each way about it through the thread.

I have been writing about each individual attack in and of itself, and taking Y as Y, not considering its relationship to X whatsoever. On any given die roll, assuming you don't need a natural 1 or 20, a +1 bonus will increase your chance of succeeding on this task by 5%. Now, this 5% may double your odds, increase them by 50%, by 33%, or whatever. Still, you have a 5% greater chance of success on a given task.

-O

 

[keterys]

Still, you have a 5% greater chance of success on a given task.

The problem is that flatly people misunderstand this stance more - you tell someone they got a 5% improvement and they go 'Meh, but who cares that hardly matters' without realizing it might have a much larger effect.

 

[Nail]

The problem is that flatly people misunderstand this stance more - you tell someone they got a 5% improvement and they go 'Meh, but who cares that hardly matters' without realizing it might have a much larger effect.

Right.

I comes down to the question "Do I notice a change?" If the difference is seen as only 1 additional hit (or miss) out of twenty swings, most people would say "I wouldn't notice that." OTOH, if you say "you'll hit 10% more", they might come to the opposite conclusion.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right.

I comes down to the question "Do I notice a change?" If the difference is seen as only 1 additional hit (or miss) out of twenty swings, most people would say "I wouldn't notice that." OTOH, if you say "you'll hit 10% more", they might come to the opposite conclusion.

if you are a damage dealer, 10% more is quite useful actually... but if you are hoping hat you notice a large effect on dailies, then you are wrong...

also it has a much larger effect on damage output if you are not hitting well... and if you are hitting badly, you won´t use a daily with no effect on a miss...

a +1 bonus is nice, but not all that matters... especially if other bonuses are nice too... (this doesn´t mean an optimized (fighting) build could put the highest score on strength to get that bonus) but if you like some diversity, i honestly believe, that +1 bonus to side effects could be more usefull, than the +1 bonus to hit... especially if you multiclass a bit...