Unearthed Arcana WOTC still can't get the backgrounds right in the new FR book.

[ECMO3]

Single player isn’t how d&d is played either. It must be 1 PC in the group context to match with your point.

If it’s really that impactful, why the hesitation to show it in that context?

I edited the post you replied to as I may be talking about different things.

Evaluating how a party does in combat is not an effective measure of the effectiveness of a player unless all players have the trait you are evaluating.

Here is an example - If my player is completely paralyzed, permanently, I think we can agree he will be pretty darn inneffective at just anything. Yet the party is still going to breeze through most combats. Sit me up in a corner and go to it. So since ethe party is not really slowed down a whole lot that being paralyzed is "nearly meaningless" to a PC? This is not a good test of this

We can compare players in a party, I am happy to do that. Have a party of 4 and compare the average output of one of them vs the average output of the other 3 of them. But a party of 4 "good" PCs compared to a party of 3 good PCs and 1 bad PC shows us very little.

 

[ECMO3]

Against a cherry picked CR 1/4 creature.

Using a cherry picked 1damage vs 2 damage example you provided.

 

[FrogReaver]

the whole argument is about if +1 to a stat matters. if your response to math trying to demonstrate a position on that is just "well that doesn't matter because you'll win anyways", then i don't know where else that thinking could possibly lead to. you can say it about any part of the game.

Strictly speaking my claim wasn’t that you’ll win 100% of the time either way so it doesn’t matter. There’s obviously some effect. The question is how much. In a typical encounter where you already have a very high win rate (whatever the number) it matters very little to your win rate.

In the incredible encounter where your win rate is 10% or so then it probably matters a lot. It’s just those aren’t realistic encounters.

 

[Maxperson]

Using a cherry picked 1damage vs 2 damage example you provided.

It wasn't an example meant to be used, as was clear from the context. I was simply showing that percentages don't mean a whole heck of a lot, because that was a 100% increase and the only way you could even begin to make it matter was to cherry pick something ultra weak for the PC to face.

 

[FrogReaver]

I edited the post you replied to as I may be talking about different things.

Evaluating how a party does in combat is not an effective measure of the effectiveness of a player unless all players have the trait you are evaluating.

Here is an example - If my player is completely paralyzed, permanently, I think we can agree he will be pretty darn inneffective at just anything. Yet the party is still going to breeze through most combats. Sit me up in a corner and go to it. So since ethe party is not really slowed down a whole lot that being paralyzed is "nearly meaningless" to a PC? This is not a good test of this

We can compare players in a party, I am happy to do that. Have a party of 4 and compare the average output of one of them vs the average output of the other 3 of them. But a party of 4 "good" PCs compared to a party of 3 good PCs and 1 bad PC shows us very little.

That’s everything. That’s what your entire claim was and what the whole disagreement is all about.

In actual play having your PC not be fully optimized (by taking 1 lower mod) will barely register anywhere. You don’t get to control the other PCs. So they need to be treated as constants. Testing 101.

 

[ECMO3]

Sure, but I don't see how you can overcome that it still only amounts to one extra hit every multiple combats and that most monsters that aren't cherry picked CR 1/4 are great bags of hit points, so the extra point of damage won't mean much. Unlike you, I'm not impressed with high seeming percentages that really don't amount to much.

Ok here you go, No feats at all.

1. Four 2nd level Fighters vs 2 Ogres (this is your example) with 15 Strength and 15 Constitution, 2 with Longswords (AC19), 2 with Greataxes (AC17) in close melee and random initiative order:

Chance of TPK: 2%
Chance of 3 downed fighters: 5%
Chance of 2 downed fighters: 18%
Chance of 1 downed fighters: 55%
Chance of no downed fighters: 22%

Expected outcome: 1 Fighter downed

2. Four 2nd level fighters with 16 Strength and 16 Constitution with the same weapons and same conditions:

Chance of TPK: less than 1% (0.3%)
Chance of 3 downed fighters: 1%
Chance of 2 downed fighters: 7%
Chance of 1 downed fighters: 35%
Chance of no downed fighters: 57%

Expected outcome: no fighters downed

So there you go. That is the scenario you asked for, without any feats, concentrated attacks and includes Sap, Cleave, Action Surge and Second Windx2. I am sure you will still find a reason to complain about it though.

 

[ECMO3]

That’s everything. That’s what your entire claim was and what the whole disagreement is all about.

In actual play having your PC not be fully optimized (by taking 1 lower mod) will barely register anywhere. You don’t get to control the other PCs. So they need to be treated as constants. Testing 101.

So being paralyzed all the time will barely register anywhere? I mean the rest of the party is carrying the load right! If you evaluated a paralyzed player against what the party can acheive, especially a big party, this is what you would get.

The rest of the party are not constants. If they are influencing the outcome in a non-stochastic way, then they are variables. If they are not part of the test group or control group then they are random variables. Any test aims to eliminate or isolate random variables and concentrate on what you are testing.

We are not testing the effectiveness of the party in a game with a low stat player. We are testing the effectiveness of the player because the claim is the player is not any less effective.

If we are talking about the party effectiveness we are talking about different things. And parties don't have backgrounds so I don't see how that is even relevant.

 

[FrogReaver]

So being paralyzed all the time will barely register anywhere? I mean the rest of the party is carrying the load right!

Missing 1 mod is now equivalent to paralyzed?

I still don’t understand why you don’t just run the proper test through your simulator.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Who also use charisma!!

But seriously. Folks call dex the god stat, but it's not. Charisma is. While you are using your dex to win initiative, hit better, and be harder to hit in that fight, I've talked my fight out of fighting me, had it join my side, and sent it off to fight another one of my enemies.

Amd int. PCs try to investigate things. And always ask, if their characters know things. If you actually roll instead of just winging it, int is really important.

 

[FrogReaver]

So being paralyzed all the time will barely register anywhere? I mean the rest of the party is carrying the load right!

The rest of the party are not constants. If they are influencing the outcome in a non-stochastic way, then they are random variables. Any test aims to eliminate or isolate random variables and concentrate on what you are testing.

We are not testing the effectiveness of the party in a game with a low stat player. We are testing the effectiveness of the player.

The effectiveness of the player is how much he decreases the party effectiveness with only him having 1 less mod….

Changing the rest of the party nullifies that test. You are no longer testing player effectiveness but party effectiveness. That’s what you are doing with your tests.