This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: "For starters, knights are too weak . . ."  (Read 4165 times)

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2012, 06:50:37 PM »
Quote from: StormBringer;587006
As I mentioned, Lord Mistborn's unadulterated admiration is misplaced.


I give credit where it's due, what of it.

Quote from: StormBringer;587006
Here, I will throw you an easy one: provide just one link that supports your claim that weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.  I mean, you had to read that somewhere, right?


Sigh, there are two players/monsters/characters

A deals 20 damage and hits 50% of the time, has 10 hp and always goes first.

B deals 10 damage and hits 100% of the time, and has 20 hp

So who wins?

Weighted adverage say B always wins when in fact B only wins 50% of the time. Geez this isn't rocket surgery. I can't belive you didn't get it the first time I sure did.
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

Sacrosanct

  • cisgrog
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7224
    • http://www.sacrosanctgames.com
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2012, 07:10:42 PM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587014
I give credit where it's due, what of it.



Sigh, there are two players/monsters/characters

A deals 20 damage and hits 50% of the time, has 10 hp and always goes first.

B deals 10 damage and hits 100% of the time, and has 20 hp

So who wins?

Weighted adverage say B always wins when in fact B only wins 50% of the time. Geez this isn't rocket surgery. I can't belive you didn't get it the first time I sure did.


Against my better judgment....

That's not how weighted averages are implemented to work.  And since using weighted averages is an accepted practice in statistical analysis, saying they're intellectually dishonest just means you don't know anything about math or academia.

But hey, what do I know?  I'm just a guy who knows practically nothing about 3e and when I said a cleric could teleport from tree to tree, you guys and your self described 3e expert said I couldn't because I'd have to be a 9th level druid or ranger or something.

Except that treestride is a 4th level cleric spell from one of the domains.  It's one thing when guys like me (pretty knowledgeable about 1e and 2e) have to keep pointing out inaccuracies with you guys when you keep saying wrong things about older editions.  That's expected.  But when a novice like me has to point out factual inaccuracies about your favored edition?  That should tell you something.

Like shut up and think before opening your mouths Wimp Lo.
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you're stupid, your PC will die.  If you're an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you're unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC's die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

Sacrosanct

  • cisgrog
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7224
    • http://www.sacrosanctgames.com
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2012, 07:21:04 PM »
Quote from: Mr. GC;586942
Bitch please.


Funny enough, Cracked has something to say about you.


Quote
I've forgotten more about D&D than you knew.

.


That must be a whole lot, because you're constantly saying things factually incorrect about D&D.
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you're stupid, your PC will die.  If you're an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you're unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC's die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2012, 07:23:42 PM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587014
Sigh, there are two players/monsters/characters

A deals 20 damage and hits 50% of the time, has 10 hp and always goes first.

B deals 10 damage and hits 100% of the time, and has 20 hp

So who wins?

Weighted adverage say B always wins when in fact B only wins 50% of the time. Geez this isn't rocket surgery. I can't belive you didn't get it the first time I sure did.
That's not a link.  That is a further demonstration of your complete lack of comprehension regarding maths.

For instance, this example isn't 'weighted averages'.  Weighted averages are used with one set of numbers (Protip:  this is a link).  It's not used to compare two sets of numbers to each other, as you are using it here.  It's used to get a weighted average of one set of numbers, which can then be compared to the weighted average of the other set.  If biology quizzes are worth 20% of a grade, but algebra quizzes are worth 15% of a grade, there are no direct comparisons that can be made with that information, other than algebra quizzes are worth less of the algebra grade than biology quizzes are worth for the biology grade.

Player A hits 50% of the time, dealing 20points per hit.  Over a span of time, that would work out to be 10points per round.  So the weighting is 50% hit and 50% not hit.  The hit item = 20, the not hit item = 0.  The average of 20 and 0 is 10.  Because there are two items in the list, and the average of two items is (A+B)/2.

It would be different if there was a 60% chance to hit.  That would average out to 12 points per round instead.  Now there are actually 10 items in the list.  Six of them are 'hit', which equals 20 points.  Four of them are 'not hit' which equals zero points.  6x20 = 120, 4x0=0, (120+0)/10 = 12.  But because it works out the same, and it's easier, we just multiply the 60% by the total, 20, and get the same result.  Alternately, you could multiply 20 by 40%, but then you have to subtract that from the original amount, 20.  An extra step that isn't needed, because it works out the first way.

Player B hits 100% of the time.  This is not a weighted average.  It doesn't even belong in here.  If Biology quizzes are worth 100% of your grade, there is no average.  That's your grade.  It's also the flaw in this argument.  It appears to you that weighted averages are dishonest, because you aren't actually using weighted averages.  You are using one weighted average and one 'certainty'.

Clearly, discussing weighted averages requires one to actually use weighted averages in the discussion, not certainties, not normal averages, not the median, mean or range.

Again, feel free to post an actual link that shows how weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.  Just make sure the link actually talks about weighted averages.  Otherwise, it would be... well, intellectually dishonest.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 07:49:41 PM by StormBringer »
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2012, 07:24:50 PM »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;587017
Except that treestride is a 4th level cleric spell from one of the domains.  It's one thing when guys like me (pretty knowledgeable about 1e and 2e) have to keep pointing out inaccuracies with you guys when you keep saying wrong things about older editions.  That's expected.  But when a novice like me has to point out factual inaccuracies about your favored edition?  That should tell you something.


Tree stride

Still Druid 5 Ranger 4, tell me what domain exactly gives you Tree Stride go on dazzle me. (I just checked my handy dandy Spell Compendium)

Not that tree stride is all that relevent in GC's scenario.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 07:32:43 PM by Lord Mistborn »
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

Sacrosanct

  • cisgrog
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7224
    • http://www.sacrosanctgames.com
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2012, 07:32:08 PM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587023
Tree stride

Still Druid 5 Ranger 4, tell me what domain exactly gives you Tree Stride go on dazzle me.

Not that tree stride is all that relevent in GC's scenario.

Elf domain.  Level 4.  As I said in my original post.  And why it's relevant is to show that you guys can't even get your own favorite edition stuff right, let alone older editions.  Your credibility is literally zero.
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you're stupid, your PC will die.  If you're an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you're unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC's die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2012, 07:34:49 PM »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;587025
Elf domain.  Level 4.  As I said in my original post.  And why it's relevant is to show that you guys can't even get your own favorite edition stuff right, let alone older editions.  Your credibility is literally zero.


Actually I looked it up and congrats you have learned to google. In this scenario there are no trees where you need to be. How does having tree stride help you exactly.
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2012, 07:37:05 PM »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;587021
Funny enough, Cracked has something to say about you.
:hatsoff:

But allow me to once again re-iterate my rules.  Do not post links to font sites, and do not fucking post links to Cracked.
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

Sacrosanct

  • cisgrog
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7224
    • http://www.sacrosanctgames.com
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2012, 07:38:05 PM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587028
Actually I looked it up and congrats you have learned to google. In this scenario there are no trees where you need to be. How does having tree stride help you exactly.

Wow!  That was some serious goal post shifting.  Congrats!  First he said I was wrong and it wasn't a 4th level cleric spell (and you just backed him up), and I just showed you both how neither one of you was right so you're shifting to something else.  Epic level disingenuous behavior there, I must say.

I didn't google it.  Like I said in my original post, I have a cleric in a 3e campaign who has that domain.  That's how I know about it.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 07:40:08 PM by Sacrosanct »
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you're stupid, your PC will die.  If you're an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you're unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC's die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

Sacrosanct

  • cisgrog
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7224
    • http://www.sacrosanctgames.com
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2012, 07:39:06 PM »
Quote from: StormBringer;587030
:hatsoff:

But allow me to once again re-iterate my rules.  Do not post links to font sites, and do not fucking post links to Cracked.



???

I posted that think because it just so happens they had something to say about the word "bitch" being the #1 most overused word on the internet.
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you're stupid, your PC will die.  If you're an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you're unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC's die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2012, 07:39:19 PM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587028
Actually I looked it up and congrats you have learned to google. In this scenario there are no trees where you need to be. How does having tree stride help you exactly.
For starters, as already discussed, absolutely zero trees in a swamp or lake is retarded.

Secondly, apparently Sacro forgot more about 3.x than you knew.
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2012, 07:40:46 PM »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;587034
???

I posted that think because it just so happens they had something to say about the word "bitch" being the #1 most overused word on the internet.
Sorry, I should have thrown a smilely in there.  Font sites and Cracked both mean I will be occupied for the next three days until I pass out from exhaustion or find and follow every link on every page at the website.
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2012, 07:47:35 PM »
Any way all the your wanking about haste and tree stride never answered GC's main point.

In 3e it is possible to have tough intelligently played encounters and the PCs who play optimally will be able to succeed.

On the other hand if the DM doesn't hold the gimps hands and let them MTP past encounters and sandbage like fuck they will die miserably to stock monsters. We already knew that from the Thunderdome though.

This D&D not chess and your level of optimization determinies whether you are Pawns or Queens. As far as I can see you jackasses are all Pawns.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 07:52:37 PM by Lord Mistborn »
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #43 on: September 28, 2012, 07:54:22 PM »
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587041
This D&D not chess and your level of optimization determinies whether or not you are Pawns or Queens. As far as I can see you jackasses are all Pawns.
Depending on the playstyle at the table, your level of optimization determines whether you are welcome at the table or a douchebag.

And of course, this is exactly what was referred to in the previous thread about winning D&D.
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

Lord Mistborn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."
« Reply #44 on: September 28, 2012, 08:02:56 PM »
Quote from: StormBringer;587042
Depending on the playstyle at the table, your level of optimization determines whether you are welcome at the table or a douchebag.

And of course, this is exactly what was referred to in the previous thread about winning D&D.


If you don't meet a certain threshold then enjoy dieing to stock mobs without DM pitty. The fact the some groups have a bad case of tall poppy syndrome and rage at the thought of component characters is irrelevant.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 08:07:26 PM by Lord Mistborn »
Quote from: Me;576460
As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.