Quote from: StormBringer;585822"Stop using math!  Math is hard!"

I'm just pointing this out before I make you feel stupid.  

Quote from: StormBringer;585822So, a 1HD monster needs to roll 15 or better to hit AC4.  6 numbers x 5% = 30%.

If an attack does 1-8 points of damage, the average is 4.5 ((1+8)/2=4.5)

If that attack only lands 30% of the time, that would be the same as doing 1.35 points of damage every single round.  (4.5 x .3 = 1.35)

A fighter has an average of ((1+10)/2) 5.5 hit points.  That works out to 4.07 hits before the Fighter drops.

This is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen from someone trying to prove their math superiority.  

If you say that the average damage is 1.35 per round, then the Fighter will last 4.07 rounds.  You've already factored in the percent hit chance when calculating the average damage.  

If you say the average damage is 4.5 per hit then a Fighter with 5.5 hit points can survive only 2 hits (technically 1.22, but you'd need a second hit).  

So, you're saying the Fighter can surive 4 rounds or 2 hits, but not 4.07 hits, dumbass.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585832:jaw-dropping:


It's completely relevant.  If you have a character that is only hit 10% of the time and has 10 hp, he will last in combat 5x LONGER than the character with 10 hp but gets hit half the time.

That's basic math dude.

Yes.  And Mr. GC acknowledged that - as do I in two additional posts prior to this.  But that doesn't mean he lasts for more hits.  It means he can potentially survive more rounds of combat, and in fact, on average he does, but it doesn't guarantee that he won't get dropped in the first attack in the first round of combat.  

A Fighter with a good AC will surive more attacks, but not appreciably more hits.  Well, depending on what you consider 'appreciably'.  The difference between 1-2 hits and 1-3 hits could be argued to be an 'appreciable difference', but I think his point largely stands - surviving to second level has a lot to do with luck at 1st level.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810Old edition Sleep is no save, you just lose. It also works against many other things.

And it's ineffective against spellcasters of 5th or higher level, while that magic missle still autohits and disrupts spells absent shield or other magical defenses.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810You were saying?

That you're as ignorant as the rest of the Den-symps.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585834Yes.  And Mr. GC acknowledged that - as do I in two additional posts prior to this.  But that doesn't mean he lasts for more hits.  It means he can potentially survive more rounds of combat, and in fact, on average he does, but it doesn't guarantee that he won't get dropped in the first attack in the first round of combat.  

A Fighter with a good AC will surive more attacks, but not appreciably more hits.  Well, depending on what you consider 'appreciably'.  The difference between 1-2 hits and 1-3 hits could be argued to be an 'appreciable difference', but I think his point largely stands - surviving to second level has a lot to do with luck at 1st level.

1. a "hit" is an attack that hits the character, not necessary one that does damage.  I.e., your plate mail isn't helping you dodge the attack; you're still getting hit.  It just helps you avoid taking damage.

But let's assume by "hits" he actually meant "successful attack", which is a common interpretation.  That would make his statement (and your validation of it), even more retarded.  Every character could die in 1-2 hits at first level if the right attack is successful.  The relevancy is how long each survives in combat.  That's what is important because that's how the game is actually played.  No one plays the game just bypassing the phase of combat that determines whether or not you succeeded in landing an attack, going right to damage allocation.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585826A monster with a THAC0 of 20 would need a 16 to hit AC 4. (20 AC 0, 19 AC1, 18 AC 2, 17 AC 3, etc).  So that's 5 numbers, or 25%.  

Sounds like you are using 2e.  

I was going off the charts in the 1st Edition DMG, but your numbers are correct for 2nd edition, of course.

QuoteI gave the fighter a +1 con bonus in my example, and rounded up for both MU and fighter.  But yeah, this is pretty much it, and a fundamental flaw in his reasoning that the fighter and MU would be hit an equal amount of times.  Which we both know is functionally retarded.

I think we both knew that before he started typing.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5858401. a "hit" is an attack that hits the character, not necessary one that does damage.  I.e., your plate mail isn't helping you dodge the attack; you're still getting hit.  It just helps you avoid taking damage.

But let's assume by "hits" he actually meant "successful attack", which is a common interpretation.  That would make his statement (and your validation of it), even more retarded.  Every character could die in 1-2 hits at first level if the right attack is successful.  The relevancy is how long each survives in combat.  That's what is important because that's how the game is actually played.  No one plays the game just bypassing the phase of combat that determines whether or not you succeeded in landing an attack, going right to damage allocation.

Only when you don't actually play D&D and are desperately trying to win the internets.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585820wow.  So not only do you not have a clue as to how D&D is played, you also don't understand how math works.  Big shocker there.

If a PC has AC 16, and an opponent doesn't have any bonuses to hit him, then there is only a 20% chance to hit.  In AD&D, if a PC has an AC of 4 and the creature has a THAC0 of 20, it's a 20% chance to hit.

Do I really need to explain 1st grade math to you?

Except for the part where first level creatures have +4 or +5 to hit and not +0.

Also, even if you were right it's 25%, so you're still a retard.

Now go back to walking in predescribed patterns and uttering single lines. The PCs are speaking.

Quote from: StormBringer;585822I am a retard that cannot read.

And this is why weighted averages are inherently intellectually dishonest. I am unsurprised you favor them, being as you are also inherently intellectually dishonest, but for the benefit of everyone else...

Creature A has a 100% chance to hit and does 10 damage, and has 20 HP.
Creature B has a 50% chance to hit and does 20 damage, and has 10 HP. B also goes first.

Who wins?

Pants on head retards, like Storm says A always wins because A takes two rounds to die and B takes one round to die. B will act, never kill A, then A will always kill B.

People that do not fail at life, the universe, and everything realize that if B hits, A dies in one hit and this is 50% likely to occur. If A gets an action, B dies. Therefore it's 50% A wins, 50% B wins.

And this is why weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585823Your conclusion assumes an awful about people who play AD&D and yourself lot for one small data point. You know the rules for haste and system shock. Congrats.

I will freely admit system shock wasn't in my mind when I answered the question. It is one of those things peope point out about haste after you have been playing for some time and most just assume it was a design oversight and ignore it. For stuff like teleport, chances of death make sense because it is so useful. But for haste it doesn't really seem justified to me.

Pointing to a commonly overlooked rule, doesn't really prove much to me.just shows that you have probably spent a lot of time debating this stuff in forums (a google of haste and system shock shows it is commonly brought up on message boards).

It is a stupid rule, but regardless it is a rule. It's the sort of thing people that have played a game a while would notice... therefore you can easily determine who has not with that simple question. I've also never discussed older editions on forums much because I was on to third edition by the time I got a home internet connection and didn't talk about D&D online until 3.5.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;585827AD&D isn't the only edition. There is no system shock roll in B/X and the haste spell provides the same benefits.

The original question started with "You are playing 1st or 2nd edition..."

Your response is duly noted yet irrelevant.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585831Not sure whoch points i failed to address.

This was more a general thing. I was trying to get people to comment on the differences between the good party and the bad party and how they manifested in actual play.

QuoteI haven't bothered to check the math on this, but this seems a very questionable conclusion to me just going by experience and the fact that a wizard has d4 hp and fighter has d10 with more con bonus potential. it will depend on what you are fighting of course.

It's not questionable at all.

At level 1 you're looking at a range of HP that is at most a 100% differential, and damage high enough to definitely two shot and possibly OHKO the high end. If you mean older editions, there's a non zero chance the Fighter has LESS HP than the Wizard, as there is no max HP at first level.

If you mean 3.x, the range is 6-12 and enemies hit up to double digits. Not only are both the Fighter and the Wizard dying in 1-2 hits, so is the dwarven raging Barbarian.

In all editions you need at least level 3 to have the HP base and ability range to make play not purely luck based... and in older editions it will remain so for all characters of all classes for all levels simply because the odds are so heavily stacked against you the only possible skill that could help you survive is the type you demonstrate under the gaming table instead of at it.

Now I can understand how that style of play would appeal to Storm and Sacro, and since I know a female DM I might revisit older editions one day for the hell of it but for the most part pure luck is entirely unappealing.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;585836And it's ineffective against spellcasters of 5th or higher level, while that magic missle still autohits and disrupts spells absent shield or other magical defenses.

By the time you are fighting spellcasters of 5th or higher level you have 3rd, or at least 2nd level spells and therefore need not rely upon Sleep any longer.

Damage also only disrupts if it hits in the narrow window while you are actually casting the spell... which is what? 1-3 segments?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585833I'm just pointing this out before I make you feel stupid.  

Every time you do this, I show you the simple mistake you have made in your mad dash to be right on the internets.

QuoteThis is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen from someone trying to prove their math superiority.  

We've replaced dDM's normal stupidity with someone who knows what they are talking about.  Let's watch...

QuoteIf you say that the average damage is 1.35 per round, then the Fighter will last 4.07 rounds.  You've already factored in the percent hit chance when calculating the average damage.  

Except, here's what I actually wrote:

Quote from: StormBringer;585822If that attack only lands 30% of the time, that would be the same as  doing 1.35 points of damage every single round.  (4.5 x .3 = 1.35)

A fighter has an average of ((1+10)/2) 5.5 hit points.  That works out to 4.07 hits before the Fighter drops.

See how that works now?  Instead of taking the time to roll a d20 25 times (or whatever), we are going to use the average.   You know, like the rest of the averages we have been using already. So you will roll 15 or better on average 30% of the time, indicating a successful attack 30% of the time.   I assume you are familiar with averages by now.  So if we assume a 30% hit rate, that means the Fighter is hit 3 rounds out of every ten. We are also going to avoid rolling a d8 three times to see what the results are, much like we didn't actually roll hit points for the Fighter.

Still keeping up?

So, if an attack that averages 4.5 points hits 30% of the time, that is the same as doing 1.35 points per round without determining hits.  The math is exactly the same in both cases.  Go ahead, get some dice and test it.  We can wait.

Back now?  Good.

QuoteIf you say the average damage is 4.5 per hit then a Fighter with 5.5 hit points can survive only 2 hits (technically 1.22, but you'd need a second hit).  

But no one is saying that because that is a retarded thing to say.  Unless the Fighter has an AD&D armour class of 20.  I believe that would be a 3.x armour class of 1.

QuoteSo, you're saying the Fighter can surive 4 rounds or 2 hits, but not 4.07 hits, dumbass.

No, I am saying that if we forgo rolling hits as a matter of expediency, the Fighter can survive 4.07 hits or rounds, because we are assuming 1.35 points of damage per round.  Effectively, rounds and hits are the same thing when we aren't rolling to hit.  In face, using Sacro's assumption of a +1 from Con, we can bump that up to 6.5 for the average Fighter hit points, which brings us up to 4.81 hits or rounds before the Fighter is out.

Is there someone near you that can not only read, but understands 3rd grade math better than you?  I should probably be addressing them.

Wow GC, you have truly impressed me with your internet badassery.  And by badassery, I mean mental incompetence.

You failed at math that my 10 year old was able to pass in 2nd grade, and instead of actually showing how you were right (because you can't), you can only answer with "you're retarded".

Your intellect is truly dizzying.  

Oh, and what 1 HD orc or goblin or kobold has +4 or +5 to hit?


But I have to hand it to you, you did manage to shift the topic into something of your level of idiocy, and are hoping to beat people with experience at this point.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846It is a stupid rule, but regardless it is a rule. It's the sort of thing people that have played a game a while would notice... therefore you can easily determine who has not with that simple question.
?

All it shows is the person doesn't factor system shock for aging into their decision about haste.

Gauging a person's knowledge of an entire edition based on one obscure and counter-intuitive application of system shock rules (it gets a passing mention in the system shock descriptor on page fifteen with no real clarification) is just illogical. Like I said, it is one of those things you eventually encounter, but most people ignore when they notice it.

I am happy to have a legitimate discussion with you on this topic. I am sure even LM an deadDM will verify that I am also happy to admit when I think I am wrong or forgot an important rule (in this case, I fully admit that rule was not something I considered when giving my response, but I think there is good reason why). But I am not going to play juvenile games with someone who is arguing in bad faith or here to proclaim himself the winner of the internet.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585819Do you? You know, since you're such a big old edition player, surely you know the basics like system shock?

In other words, no, you don't have a page number because you are completely pulling that out of your ass. Quelle surprise.  The burden of proof is on you, dipshit, you made the assertion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585854All it shows is the person doesn't factor system shock for aging into their decision about haste. .

All it actually shows is that GC never has actually played AD&D and is trying to come off as some expert because he google'd an obscure rule.  Otherwise, if he had played AD&D, he'd know that there are dozens and dozen of rules that nearly everyone ignored when they played the game and wouldn't insist on going down this path of idiocy.

"If people don't remember that SS was used for haste, that clearly means they didn't play AD&D."

Seriously?  Anyone who has played AD&D would look at that statement and shake their head.  That's like saying that anyone who didn't play with the weapon type vs. armor chart never actually played the game.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846Except for the part where first level creatures have +4 or +5 to hit and not +0.

Creature A has a 100% chance to hit and does 10 damage, and has 20 HP.
Creature B has a 50% chance to hit and does 20 damage, and has 10 HP. B also goes first.

I don't think I can continue after reading this.  These are the dumbest two things I have read all year, and there aren't many months left to top them.  I am declaring a winner, I think.

1st level monsters with +5 to hit, and 100% chance to hit.  Man, that is just awesome.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846And this is why weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.

:rotfl:

I lied, we have a new winner in the same post.

I am going to run down to the President of my college and tell them weighted averages are intellectually dishonest, and my GPA should be five or six or something.

"I'm not wrong, maths are wrong!"
Man, that is just stellar.  Out-fucking-standing.

Quote from: StormBringer;5858601st level monsters with +5 to hit, and 100% chance to hit.  Man, that is just awesome.

Hit dice, not levels.

I don't believe you've ever played d&d!

Quote from: StormBringer;585850Effectively, rounds and hits are the same thing when we aren't rolling to hit.  In face, using Sacro's assumption of a +1 from Con, we can bump that up to 6.5 for the average Fighter hit points, which brings us up to 4.81 hits or rounds before the Fighter is out.

So you're saying that because you don't care to distinguish between rounds (which equates to actions) and hits (which equate to successful hits), two words with totally different meanings, that I'm the retard.  

Hits and Rounds are not the same.  The hit does not do 1.35 damage per hit, it does 4.5 (as you said).  That averages to 1.35 damage per round.  

You have to use the right term.  4.5 damge per hit or 1.35 average damager per round.  If you say 1.35 damage per hit you're reversing your terms and you look like a dumbass.  I mean, more than usual.  

But fine, if you can't admit you're wrong (despite accusing me earlier of being incapable of admitting the same), I'll just note that before I call you out on your dumbassery.