Wotc_Huscarl on the Biggie Smalls playtest, part 4.

[helium3]

Well, my original point was not that it wouldn't work, but that it would be less simple. However, thinking through it again, I've concluded that it won't be that complex. If the dual-roll is at will and the re-roll is per encounter, what's likely to happen in game is that the player will do the dual-roll first, and if the higher of the two results is still pretty low, then he'll try the re-roll.

My only other thought (other than that there's some other detail here we don't know that makes the reason for the change obvious) is that when I introduced a similar class ability in my homebrew there was this weird suspicion that it might be "broken" simply by virtue of it being so different from normal game play.

In core 3.5 (ie no splatbooks) the only way this EVER happened in game was if a cleric with the luck domain used his once a day domain power. So, maybe this is simply a case of the playtesters looking at the power, comparing it to how "valuable" 3.5 implied the ability was and and erupting with squeals of "I don't like it. It's broken."

*shrug*

I just figured out how to calculate probability on this one, so maybe that'll lead to an explanation.

 

[helium3]

AH HAH! I haves dah answer!

They likely dropped it because it creates a totally different probability curve that heavily favors the upper half of the 1-20 range. A Ranger that always used this ability would crit a fraction less than 10% of the time. Here's the curve (it's linked to a higher resolution photo on photobucket):



When used sparingly (ie some sort of restriction on when it can be used or how often) this power is fine. As an "always on power" it significantly increases the Ranger's chances to hit as he'll roll 11-20 75% of the time and 16-20 just under 44% of the time.

Unless there's some other factor here we don't know about, this is definitely in the realm of what I'd consider a broken mechanic. How is it that the designers missed this in the first place? It really doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should have shoved out the door to the playtesters in the first place.

 

[SlagMortar]

They likely dropped it because it creates a totally different probability curve that heavily favors the upper half of the 1-20 range.

1d20+4 also heavily favors the upper half of the 1-20 range.

When used sparingly (ie some sort of restriction on when it can be used or how often) this power is fine. As an "always on power" it significantly increases the Ranger's chances to hit as he'll roll 11-20 75% of the time and 16-20 just under 44% of the time.

A 1d20+4 will roll 11-24 70% of the time, so the difference is significant but not massive.
A 1d20+4 will roll 16-24 45% of the time, so the +4 is better than 2d20 take highest.

The one thing I don't like about changing from a re-roll to a +4 is that if you need exactly a 20 to hit, then the normal hit chance is 5%, the re-roll hit chance is 9.75%, but the +4 chance to hit is 25%.

However, I do not expect this to be a problem because I expect that level appropriate creatures will almost never require a 19 or 20 to hit because the designers opinion is that missing is "not fun".

 

[Cadfan]

Unless there's some other factor here we don't know about, this is definitely in the realm of what I'd consider a broken mechanic. How is it that the designers missed this in the first place? It really doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should have shoved out the door to the playtesters in the first place.

First of all, remember to compare it to the +4. That makes you roll a 11 or above a full 70% of the time, which is about the same. It makes you roll a 16 or above 45% of the time.

So that's very close to the same. The only major difference is in the critical hit chances, which go from 5% to 9.75%.

As for whether its broken, well, it depends a lot on how damage is calculated, and what this power is compatible with. If this power only works for regular, run of the mill fired arrows, and rangers have access to lots of special per encounter (or even at will) options to fire arrows that do extra things, deal extra damage, or to fire more arrows per turn, then this power essentially balances itself.

I hope that's the case. The archetypical archer's schtick is his pinpoint accuracy. I'd like it if archers got something that made them significantly more accurate than other classes, at least when they want to be.

The biggest danger to balance is probably the doubled chances of a critical, especially if the game has lots of "burst" type effects which do extra damage on a critical.

 

[helium3]

A 1d20+4 will roll 11-24 70% of the time, so the difference is significant but not massive.
A 1d20+4 will roll 16-24 45% of the time, so the +4 is better than 2d20 take highest.

Good point, I hadn't thought about that sort of a comparison. It does pretty much create the same chance of a roll producing a value above a certain number.

The one thing I don't like about changing from a re-roll to a +4 is that if you need exactly a 20 to hit, then the normal hit chance is 5%, the re-roll hit chance is 9.75%, but the +4 chance to hit is 25%.

Well, I'm assuming that the +4 is just a modifier now and that a crit only happens on a 20, if I understand what you mean by "needing exactly a 20 to hit."

If ones are still automatic misses, the +4 version increases the chance to miss back to 5% rather than the 1/4% it was at with the 2d20-take the best method.

As for it being "broken" as an at will power I suppose I just imagined what would happen in 3.5 if you modified the probability curve for the base d20 roll like that and it seemed extreme.

The way I look at the d20, when things are balanced a roll of below 10 usually means a miss, a roll of 11 to 15 can be either depending on the modifiers in effect and 16+ is almost always a hit. So, 50% of the time you swing and miss, 25% of the time you swing and hit and 25% percent of the time it's a toss-up. With the new curve, 25% of the time your roll is a miss, 25% of the time its a toss-up and 50% of the time it's a hit.

Still, it functionally isn't very different from a +4 modifier, so yeah I think you're right. It's probably not as broken as I initially thought. The modifier probably also makes it easier to eyeball how much better you are at hitting when using the power compared to other attackers.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

That brought the figurative roof down. Elves started popping out of the bushes all 'round. Two of them surrounded our redoubtable hero and with a flurry of blows (two attacks each), battered him down to just 1 HP!

That is really interesting. Multiple Attacks by using a Feat/Talent/Power?
Or standard 3.5 iterative attacks?

They probably had the Rapid Shot feat, or whatever it's 4e equivalent is.

 

[JohnSnow]

They probably had the Rapid Shot feat, or whatever it's 4e equivalent is.

Sounds like double attack from Saga. But I would guess that if you design it as a power rather than a feat, you don't need to impose the attack penalty.

Rapid Shot, at least in SWSE, just added damage to your shot against a single opponent. To target two opponents, you needed double attack.

My guess is that this is all about the opportunity attack. You can get the +4 to hit at will, but you can't combine that with any of your other powers (to get extra shots, do extra damage, or the like).

 

[Walking Dad]

Sounds like double attack from Saga. But I would guess that if you design it as a power rather than a feat, you don't need to impose the attack penalty.

Rapid Shot, at least in SWSE, just added damage to your shot against a single opponent. To target two opponents, you needed double attack.

My guess is that this is all about the opportunity attack. You can get the +4 to hit at will, but you can't combine that with any of your other powers (to get extra shots, do extra damage, or the like).

ok,... in your standard attack you use the +4 bonus. If you want to do something special, you loose this +4.

Sounds like the same math:
Your attack bonus is 4 points higher, but you take a -4 penality to do something specal.

 

[jaer]

They might have changed the 2d20 to 1d20+4 because rangers were the only ones who got a 2d20 roll...Biggie does imply he was the only one doing it. And they might have found rangers were unfavorably recieving bonus crit due to it.

Perhaps it did interfer with the elven ability and other abilities similar to it. If you reroll the attack, do you reroll one of the d20s, or both?

Or, perhaps they decided that a power that rolled 2d20 for one attack ended up being too similar (and not as worth it) as the later one which allowed 2d20 for two attacks (a Rapid Fire ability). After all, Careful Strike would never be used once Rapid Fire was taken. However, if Careful Strike gives a +4 and Rapid Fire gives two attacks, then the ranger has two different attacks to pick between, depending on the situation.

Also, if Rapid Fire is a per encounter and the old 2d20 Careful Strike at will, you get the whole "which attack did you use there?" It adds a level of confusion and potential 'cheating.' The player would be rolling 2d20 each round, and on that round he happens to drop double 20s "that was my rapid fire round: I crit twice!"

I say keep the 2d20 for when you are making 2 attacks.

 

[Walking Dad]

Or, perhaps they decided that a power that rolled 2d20 for one attack ended up being too similar (and not as worth it) as the later one which allowed 2d20 for two attacks (a Rapid Fire ability). After all, Careful Strike would never be used once Rapid Fire was taken. However, if Careful Strike gives a +4 and Rapid Fire gives two attacks, then the ranger has two different attacks to pick between, depending on the situation.

Also, if Rapid Fire is a per encounter and the old 2d20 Careful Strike at will, you get the whole "which attack did you use there?" It adds a level of confusion and potential 'cheating.' The player would be rolling 2d20 each round, and on that round he happens to drop double 20s "that was my rapid fire round: I crit twice!"

I say keep the 2d20 for when you are making 2 attacks.

COOL!!

I think you are on something. I hope the designers think like you.

Your Careful Strike vs Rapid Shot reads like a Rules Design Handbook!!!