Quote from: Sacrosanct;585857All 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.

To me it is even questionable whether the rule by raw applies onone year of ageing from haste. The spell itself just says it ages you, whereas a spell like polymorph other is explicit that it requires a system shock roll to survive. Page fifteen simply states that system shock is used providing a percentage chance for survival of things like magical aging. It doesn't say all magical ageing effects require a system shock roll. Even on page 24 where it goes into magical ageing, there is no explicit statement that all magical ageing causes a system shock roll. Page 24 even uses haste as an example to show the effects of magical ageing but doesn't mention system shock rolls to stay alive. I will admit I could be missing something, but the more I look into this matter again, the more I am inclined to think that the conclusion that haste requires a system shock by raw is a quesitonable conclusion.

Quote from: StormBringer;585850So, 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.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846And 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: Sacrosanct;585851Wow 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.  

More lalala, I can't hear you. Consider the above directed at you as well.

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

Without trying, the orc hits +4 melee. The goblin and kobold would need another easy +1, but all are well above 0.

There also is the "in older editions, you have many more fights and therefore many more chances to be hit 1-2 times and die" factor which you are also completely ignoring just as you do everything else that is convenient for you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585854All 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.

Sacro and Storm have gone full retard. You, when faced with questions immediately attempted to change the subject to asking if I have played older editions, with the obvious corollary that if I had not you'd then use that to dodge.

When it was revealed that I did, in fact understand the older editions you tried to downplay it by calling it an obscure rule, and a stupid one... and to be fair it is but that's beside the point.

The point is when someone tries to dodge, and I call them on it and make it clear that won't work I am not the one trying to play games here.

I will give you credit though. Despite your dubious start you might be interested in an actual discussion, whereas the stupid twins over there are only interested in ignoring what does not suit them and only focusing on a single, very small part of the argument they perceive as the weakest part then declare themselves to be Charlie Sheen. Stormbringer is indeed bringing the Stormwind, and the Oberoni, and every other fallacy he can find...

So I suppose my question at this point is are there people here, other than Brendan that might possibly be interested in an actual discussion and is there anyone here in this place of "Only actual play matters" willing to discuss the example of actual play at all?

Quote from: One Horse Town;585861Hit dice, not levels.

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

I beg to differ.  

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

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585862So 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.

You can't be this stupid.  It's just not possible.  You cannot be this stupid and not have a guardian or handler or something.

Quote from: StormBringer;585865I beg to differ.  

Oh, i know.

It's retarded that people put this much effort into shoving their internet cocks down each others throat.

I can only assume it's an attempt to get the thread locked. If that's the case it can easily be seen as site disruption if that's the route we want to go.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585864Sacro and Storm have gone full retard

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

Drop this gem over at the Wolfram forums and see what they have to say.

QuoteIt is a stupid rule, but regardless it is a rule.

I presume this means you are going to continue making this assertion without providing any evidence?  In other words, lying?

Quote from: StormBringer;585860I 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.

Hey look, more pants in head retardation from the stupid twins!

Notice how no level was stated for creature A and B? The example was level agnostic. In fact it was system agnostic, as even a moron such as yourself can deduce max accuracy is 95%.

But I understand. I didn't let you say the obvious stupidity by claiming A would always win because I made it very clear anyone who said that was a fucking moron. So instead you had to go derp about something else.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585863To me it is even questionable whether the rule by raw applies onone year of ageing from haste. The spell itself just says it ages you, whereas a spell like polymorph other is explicit that it requires a system shock roll to survive. Page fifteen simply states that system shock is used providing a percentage chance for survival of things like magical aging. It doesn't say all magical ageing effects require a system shock roll. Even on page 24 where it goes into magical ageing, there is no explicit statement that all magical ageing causes a system shock roll. Page 24 even uses haste as an example to show the effects of magical ageing but doesn't mention system shock rolls to stay alive. I will admit I could be missing something, but the more I look into this matter again, the more I am inclined to think that the conclusion that haste requires a system shock by raw is a quesitonable conclusion.

Isn't "it doesn't say I can't" the exact line people here use to bitch about optimizers trying to find rules loopholes?

Polymorph is explicitly a PKing tool, Haste is a bit more subtle about it.

It's right along the lines of the 1st edition PHB suggesting that Blade Barrier might move with the caster and then the real version in the DMG revealing oops, no it doesn't, get killed by your own spell!

Oh and +4 or +5 to hit at level 1 is just the normal values. You could get 10, or even 15 if you really tried. I'm not surprised some think otherwise, as they're busy fighting things with -1 to hit that still make physical attacks for some reason to attempt to justify the Fighter, but that doesn't make it true when discussing the actual game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;585868Oh, i know.

It's retarded that people put this much effort into shoving their internet cocks down each others throat.

I can only assume it's an attempt to get the thread locked. If that's the case it can easily be seen as site disruption if that's the route we want to go.

I don't want to necessarily see it locked, but people spouting off complete nonsense about a topic they clearly have no experience or knowledge of?  I mean, obviously the Denner Reject Crew is only here for the lulz and general site disruption.  Other than MGuy, there have been zero contributions by any of them unless FvW comes up.

Still, I don't like my forums shitted up by people spouting ridiculously uninformed nonsense.

Quote from: StormBringer;585873I don't want to necessarily see it locked, but people spouting off complete nonsense about a topic they clearly have no experience or knowledge of?  I mean, obviously the Denner Reject Crew is only here for the lulz and general site disruption.  Other than MGuy, there have been zero contributions by any of them unless FvW comes up.

Wait, so I'm not MGuy anymore? Make up your mind!

Quote from: Mr. GC;585871Isn't "it doesn't say I can't" the exact line people here use to bitch about optimizers trying to find rules loopholes?

Polymorph is explicitly a PKing tool, Haste is a bit more subtle about it.

It's right along the lines of the 1st edition PHB suggesting that Blade Barrier might move with the caster and then the real version in the DMG revealing oops, no it doesn't, get killed by your own spell!

Oh and +4 or +5 to hit at level 1 is just the normal values. You could get 10, or even 15 if you really tried. I'm not surprised some think otherwise, as they're busy fighting things with -1 to hit that still make physical attacks for some reason to attempt to justify the Fighter, but that doesn't make it true when discussing the actual game.

I have beem reviewing all th phb and dmg mentions I can this morning (something I almost never do for internet debates because it is a waste of valuable time) based on our discussion, and I frankly see no good reason to conclude that all magical ageing requires a system shock roll. Page fifteen simply makes it clear that magical ageing can cause a system shock roll and to me it looks like the rules are supposed to be explicit in specific instances. I was actually inclined to agree with you about it before I started checking out the text. The fact that haste is used as an example on page twenty four to demonstrate the effects of magical ageing and it doesn't mention system shock at all is, I think, pretty conclusive evidence it doesn't require a system shock roll.

I acknowledge I could be missing something. It might say somewhere in the phb or dmg that all magical ageing causes a system shock roll. But right now I am not seeing any real basis for that conclusion.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585871Hey look, more pants in head retardation from the stupid twins!

No, sweetcheeks, I was making fun of your two separate instances of being utterly clueless:

1. 1st level (not 1HD, mind you) creatures routinely have +4 or +5 to hit, and
2. 100% chance to hit.

"Well, if one monstar has 65million% chance to hit, and does 13hojillion damage, weighted averages are dumb and math is wrong.  lol!"

Quote from: Mr. GC;585864More lalala, I can't hear you. Consider the above directed at you as well.

so that's a "no" then, you can't prove your backasswards math then?

Thought so.

QuoteWithout trying, the orc hits +4 melee. The goblin and kobold would need another easy +1, but all are well above 0.

Y U always try to talk about older editions, but always use 3e stats?

And you accuse others of being intellectually dishonest.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Mr. GC;585875Wait, so I'm not MGuy anymore? Make up your mind!

That was me, not him.  Yet one more example of you not being able to keep things straight.

Color me surprised.

OHT,

Obviously we've now seen clear examples of the people I was talking about in my OP.  They've also managed to turn this into yet another FvW thread.  Since we've now clearly identified the type of dicks I was talking about, if you want to close the thread, I don't care.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585864Without trying, the orc hits +4 melee. The goblin and kobold would need another easy +1, but all are well above 0.

There also is the "in older editions, you have many more fights and therefore many more chances to be hit 1-2 times and die" factor which you are also completely ignoring just as you do everything else that is convenient for you.

In which edition is the orc attacking at +4? An orc attacks as a 1 HD monster.

The number of fights participated in at low levels during older edition games varies greatly from group to group. It isn't something that is quantified in the rules.