Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7531102" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Years ago in a stargate forum, i had a discussion on dice and damage etc with someone who insisted that since his d20 rolled 14 more often than any other number his calculations were based on that and that it was absolutely proper and accurate to base anslysis ob &quot;the most likely outcomes&quot;!!!Definitely led to an agree to disagree moment.&quot;Yes I am more likely to suffer no damage by imposing DIS on a to hit of 20, but I am likely to suffer very little in the first place. If I can impose DIS on an 11+ to hit I will make the biggest reduction in damage compared to being hit on 11+ without DIS.&quot;This is a key point. You will be at lower risk risk of taking damage from a need-20 than a need-11 period but you dont get to control necessarily those situations. Other things being equal, most folks would be happier being in the need-20 to hit me case.In such a case, a choice to use your action to apply disad is likely a poor one unless you literally have nothing else to do or there is some very critical need. Its just unlikely that the 20 vs twp 20s will either be a winning or losing difference if there is any other choice.Meanwhile, if you are dealing with the more common situation mid-range of need-11 you are in a situation where you are likely to take damage over and over and where dropping the chance of hit from 50% to 25% shows a significant reduction in the threat and expected dmg. Amusingly, in last night's game, the bard's VM for disad in the final battle played a critical role when it was used on the enemy leader who needed 10s and 11s to hit and i am pretty dang sure if it had been a need-20 situation the bard woulda been in there sword in hand instead for bigger impact.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7531102, member: 6919838"] Years ago in a stargate forum, i had a discussion on dice and damage etc with someone who insisted that since his d20 rolled 14 more often than any other number his calculations were based on that and that it was absolutely proper and accurate to base anslysis ob "the most likely outcomes"!!! Definitely led to an agree to disagree moment. "Yes I am more likely to suffer no damage by imposing DIS on a to hit of 20, but I am likely to suffer very little in the first place. If I can impose DIS on an 11+ to hit I will make the biggest reduction in damage compared to being hit on 11+ without DIS." This is a key point. You will be at lower risk risk of taking damage from a need-20 than a need-11 period but you dont get to control necessarily those situations. Other things being equal, most folks would be happier being in the need-20 to hit me case. In such a case, a choice to use your action to apply disad is likely a poor one unless you literally have nothing else to do or there is some very critical need. Its just unlikely that the 20 vs twp 20s will either be a winning or losing difference if there is any other choice. Meanwhile, if you are dealing with the more common situation mid-range of need-11 you are in a situation where you are likely to take damage over and over and where dropping the chance of hit from 50% to 25% shows a significant reduction in the threat and expected dmg. Amusingly, in last night's game, the bard's VM for disad in the final battle played a critical role when it was used on the enemy leader who needed 10s and 11s to hit and i am pretty dang sure if it had been a need-20 situation the bard woulda been in there sword in hand instead for bigger impact. [/QUOTE]

Verification