| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
    
 | | 12/11/2006 12:44 PM |
| Posted By Skyscraper on 12/11/2006 12:04 PM
IanB: You seem to know your stuff, but i'd be interested in the details: how do you have 75% chance of getting one heads result by flipping a coin twice? What's the equation?
Thanks,
Sky
75% of *at least* one heads result. The chances of getting *exactly* one heads result are different.
Here are the possible outcomes with 2 coin flips:
#1: Coin A tails, Coin B tails
#2: Coin A heads, Coin B tails
#3: Coin A tails, Coin B heads
#4: Coin A heads, Coin B heads
Given that these 4 events are all equal in probability, you can see that 3 out of 4 of them have at least one heads result, thus, 75%. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/11/2006 1:47 PM |
| Heh. I was hoping for a general equation that will be usable for all circumstances 
But thanks
Sky
| |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
MangasColoradas
Sneak
82 Posts
| | 12/11/2006 2:21 PM |
| Maybe you can find what you are looking for on wikipeda ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability | |
If you do something, I will do something. If you do nothing, I will do nothing. | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 12/11/2006 4:11 PM |
| This is why I hate probablility.Â
Okay, I can see what you are saying and I'll trust your math.  But still, when you get up to bat, each roll still only has a 30% of hitting. The number doesn't go up on the individual roll since each roll is an individual event. I think the increase in damage is not worth it at this point and I would set up others like htting AC 10 for aid anothers.Â
Posted By IanB on 12/11/2006 11:40 AM Posted By gss_000 on 12/08/2006 8:38 PM
I still don't think so. By that logic, if I flip a coin twice I have a 100% chance of it landing on heads. Adding attacks does not improve your chances, that's not how it works. It just gives you more opportunities to make it, but your chances are lower. In the AC 15 case you still only have a 30% chance even if you roll it twice.
As for the crit, you still have a 1/20 chance, again more chances, but your odds of confirming are worse.
No, by flipping a coin twice, you have a 75% chance of getting at least one heads result. Adding attacks with the monk works much the same way. I think maybe I am not understanding your point. Taking one swing instead of flurrying (except in exceptional circumstances, like needing exactly an 18 to hit, or when you have to move after one swing no matter what happens with it) is costing you damage with no gain at all. You may not trust the math, but that is how the probabilities work.
| |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 12/11/2006 4:30 PM |
| Oh, I just did the calculation myself. I'm getting 51%, not 68%. Just to be sure, how are you getting 68%. I'm getting it from:
To hit AC 15 in this case you need to roll a 15 or above (6/20 = .30). The total probability is:
.30+.30-.09 = .51, right? Thanks.
| |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 12/11/2006 4:42 PM |
| .3 +.3*.7 is .51, yeah. I'm not sure how I came up with 64% now. The improvement isn't as dramatic as I incorrectly calculated, but it is still an improvement.
EDIT: I see what I did, I calculated the flurry as if it wasn't taking a penalty to hit, 64% is what the chance would be if you were flurrying at +2 to hit. Whoops! I *think* all the math in my prior posts is right, but I will go back and check it now. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/11/2006 5:24 PM |
| I usually multiply the miss chances and subtract from 1.
Anything wrong with that?
If I need a 16 or higher, over 3 attacks, my miss chance for each is 75%
.75 x .75 x .75 = approx .42
1.00 - .42 = .58
or 58% that at least one of those three attacks will hit.
That still means, even though it's probable that one attack will hit, a bit less than half the time, you'll miss all 3.
15 or higher, over two attacks...
.7 x .7 = .49
51% chance of hitting at least one of the two.
| |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/11/2006 6:06 PM |
| Thanks for the link MangasColoradas. Now i know that i just want to play the game and stick with my gut feeling instead of calcuating everything
This being said, i've always liked to attack more often myself, all other things being equal. It allows me to roll one additional die, and i like that As far as damage is concerned... bah, who cares! Hehe
As a side note, obviously Wizards did their math also when figuring out if two attacks at -2 to hit were better or worse than one attack without penalty: using a two-handed weapon is rewarded with additional damage due to STR bonus X 1.5 in addition to the larger weapon damage being more important, as opposed to taking a feat to get two weapon fighting.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 12/11/2006 6:18 PM |
| I think the gut works well much of the time. Myself, I hate -2 penalties in general, although for some strange reason I like 2 weapon fighting (But I like two-handed fighting even better)!
But on the topics of monks, I always fin it interesting that in many ways they start very similar to archers with rapid fire, but the fighter BAB makes the -2 penalty a non-entity compared to the monk's cleric's BAB.
Oh and thanks, Ian, for making me get a refresher on probability. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/11/2006 6:28 PM |
| I find that changing my avatar from Morpheus to my one-year-old-disguised-as-a-duck makes me look much more like the "warrior" that i am
Sky
p.s.: was that off-topic? Nah... | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/12/2006 5:18 AM |
| During a game, DDM or D&D, it's not the time to calculate probabilities like this.
During a few forum posts? Sure. It's good because it gives you a rough idea to take with you into a game.
I know that, if I string together three high % chances in my favor, it should work out that around or over 50% of the time, I'll get all 3. (like 95%, 75%, 80%... )
You sort of get the rough poker odds going in your head without actually doing the work, which is helpful. | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/12/2006 7:47 AM |
| I guess it can be fun calculating probabilities - and i have a couple of friends who are quite into that, but in the end i feel that D&D is better off not being knee-deep in numbers, for immersion purposes. The more you start juggling numbers out-of-game, the more it's likely to influence your in-game decisions, and the more it becomes a probability calculation instead of a role-playing immersive experience.
This being said, this is a very minor peeve for me, i don't mind people actually doing it. But it's also the reason why you won't see me in the min-maxing threads too, it's not my stuff.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 12/12/2006 2:47 PM |
| | What's funny is that I feel it immerses me more than not. I used to LARP a lot in a game where there was boffer fighting and taking any hits was costly (it wasn't hit point based. If you got hit in the arm you couldn't use the arm, etc). When I was doing that, I was always trying to figure how to get the person into a position where I could hit them. So as long as the calculations don't take all day to do during combat, I like trying to figure the odds. But as I've shown, my method is not always right. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/12/2006 8:44 PM |
| I tend to Min-Max naturally without actually sitting down and doing the calculations. I can't help it.
A lot of people say that they don't want to sacrifice story for the rules, or role-play for power gaming.
I think I speak for my group when I say this, but, I'm greedy, I want it all.
I want a highly effective PC with a solid backstory interacting in a world with deep NPCs, a good ongoing series of plots, and challenging & accurately played combat.
You'd think, on the surface, that someone who looks at numbers, sticks by the rules, and focuses heavily on terrain and miniatures wouldn't put weight on a good story and good RP.
However, the son of one of our players, who is 13, regularly complains that we role-play too much (he's at that age where he just wants to smash stuff the whole time... like a video game... but he's coming along and handles his part in combat well, and he's actually mature and intelligent for his age about most things).
So yeah, be greedy... why not? Try to have it all. Like a critically acclaimed movie that the average person actually likes to watch... heh. | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 12/12/2006 10:31 PM |
| Maybe you heard of this, but your post is similar to the Stormwind Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338&)
Essentially, it states that min/maxing and roleplaying are two separate sills and one being able to do one does not impact on being able to do he other.
Now, on this board, I haven't seen any elitism, but I've stopped going to some boards who basically commit this fallacy over and over and make you feel like you are a bad gamer if you like to min/max. Again, I haven't seen it here yet, which is why I recommend it to others.  | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/13/2006 4:52 AM |
| GSS, that's one of the reasons I started posting here... I was impressed with what people were saying in the threads.
I think it was the thread about "Rules Lawyers" where I read it and thought, "Here we go, another gripe-fest about players who might have a problem with being rail-roaded..." But that's not what the thread was, and the examples in question were actually of players who were getting the rules wrong, or partial, but trying to site them in their own favor. Very nice surprise.
So yeah, I agree with you.
I like to be able to go to a forum and find out what I did wrong (or could have done better) in a certain instance, and vice versa. That's tough to do if you get people debating whether or not a DM can actually be "wrong".
| |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/13/2006 8:52 AM |
| I think that, alike railroading, we're all min-maxers to a certain degree. The question is, up to what point?
Myself, i'm don't think i'm deeply into it, but you should see the group i play with: 3 out of 4 players are much less into it than i am!
I don't care really how people play there game. If you like to optimize your PC and NPCs, why not. I do it, somewhat, although i mainly follow a role-playing thread when i create a NPC (or a PC). Of course, i won't chose the worst equipment and feats and spells.
If i am to play with other players around the table, and these players were to be min-maxers without any role-play angle whatsoever, i could not really critisize their gaming style from an absolute point of view, but i could say that their approach is not what i'm looking for.
This being said, the fourth player that plays with us who's not counted in the 3 out of 4 mentioned above, is a PC optimizer, and i dont mind it at all, nor does anyone in our group to my knowledge. He's not anal about it, he just does it for his PC and he's not talking about his stats all the time, he role-plays.
I don't think there is any one good answer to this subject. YRM, you state that optimizing and role-playing both is "having it all" in a game. I do not agree with that statement either, since for me there is no 100% mark for a playing style, no perfection, no absolute solution. I truly and very profoundly believe that. Any choice you make in your playing style, any playing style you follow, will usually be at the detriment of some other gaming effect, or if not at the detriment of it, will branch away from it. For example, following a purely intuitive character creation process (almost impossible, really, but let's assume it would be) would probably be considered the opposite of optimization, and thus pure optimization through number crunching is done to the detriment of some form of intuitive approach. And i believe that intuitive approaches have their upsides too.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/13/2006 9:25 AM |
| Ok... I'm not saying that everything about our group's style of play is top-of-the-line by everyone else's standards.
One example is that we use a house rule to generate STATS.
The rule is that the total modifier bonus (say, +6) must equal a certain amount prior to picking age and race, and that no two stats can be the same, and that three must be even, and three must be odd.
We can debate whether or not point-buy punishes a guy for needing one high stat vs several above average stats, but, we decided that, with the variety thrown at the groups in our campaigns, that point buy punished the class that only needed 1 or 2 great stats (like a Barbarian or Wizard).
There are a lot of people, as evidenced by the article that GSS linked, that think you can't be a Role Player and a Power Gamer at the same time. Or you can't have technical combat AND a good story.
I'm not saying you think those things, but a lot of gamers do.
I do want to have a good story and deep NPCs.
I do want players who build effective PCs and work effectively together.
I do want realistic, accurate combat, (at least as far as the rules are realistic).
I do want the players to role play, in character, to the best of their ability.
We're far from the best group ever at each of those things individually, but, we'd like to be solid at all of them.
And it can be tough if you have PCs that don't feel the need to play effectively.
They can be outshone, which is bad, but you can't punish another player for putting more effort into crafting an effective PC either (and I don't mean some twinked out mixed build, I'm talking, core class effective).
I don't mind it if a PC has a "shoe fetish" and is "writing a book about pixies and wants to interview them"... but if they get into combat, and don't pull their weight, someone is going to die and the other players will work to correct the problem, at first with encouragement and polite requests, and then with gradually more extreme measures.
Last session, the 13 year old needed to cast Mass Align Weapon before a fight, and he knew he needed to do this per player conversations. When the fight started, the player decided to swap himself out with a Celestial Brown Bear instead.
As a result, another PC came within one round of dying.
Nobody kicked the kid out of the group, but, they pointed out, during the battle, that his "no glory" buff spell cost the party 100 points of damage to a Barbed Devil, which is more damage than most offensive spells do.
He felt bad that another player had almost died because he didn't follow the group's battle plan (which he contributes to, and agreed to).
But if a player did join my group and only performed to, say, 50% effectiveness (you can get away with 80%), they'd find themselves often outshone and probably in a lot of danger a lot of the time. And honestly, it can be kind of fun to have your PC get killed.
- You learn from it.
- You get to roll up a new PC.
- It reminds everyone at the table that the DM isn't cheating for them.
Last story...
At a convention, this guy who started his session by telling us that he was a "fantastic" DM and we'd all have a great time...
Every fight was our party surrounding one monster and beating it down. There was limited Role Play and not much story.
We surrounded a Remorhaz, and the girl playing a Monk PUNCHED it, even though the DM did describe that it was radiating intense heat, hot enough to cause severe burns.
So, because she was a semi-cute girl, and new, the DM ignored the fire damage and spared her any damage or even knowing that she might have been at risk. This wasn't just minor fudging to keep her alive, which is at least debatable in value.
Now, if she goes into another campaign, with another DM, she might expect such similar favorable fudging, and be angry if dice or monsters don't go her way. Even if she keeps a great attitude, she didn't learn anything about a mistake she didn't even know she made.
| |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
| 
Most Edumacated
zenthrus
Warlord
5132 Posts
SLC, UT
| | 12/13/2006 9:40 AM |
| Posted By YRM_DM on 12/13/2006 9:25 AM
One example is that we use a house rule to generate STATS.
The rule is that the total modifier bonus (say, +6) must equal a certain amount prior to picking age and race, and that no two stats can be the same, and that three must be even, and three must be odd.
That's an interesting set of restrictions. I like pre-determined constraints...they foster creativity (just ask Christian Bok if you don't believe me  ).
Building efficient characters uses the left half [analytical side] of the brain. Creating deep role-playing and complex storylines uses the right half [creative side] of the brain. I fail to see how the two are mutually incompatible unless people only use half their brains
Personally, I prefer excellent combat and complex role-playing. Both LARP and tabletop roleplaying are drastically enhanced by a good combination and implementation of efficient characters and deep storylines. [seems we're avoiding being railroaded by the thread topic...].
| |
Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie?
Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers
Knight of the Large Dire Chicken
Have/Want List
Trade References | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 12/13/2006 9:52 AM |
| I hope people don't misunderstand what I posted. The consequence of the fallacy, or not falling into it, is that you have to believe that D&D can support many styles of gaming. It doesn't validate one style over another. If you prefer a game with more heavy roleplaying or one that is more power gaming, that's fine. That's your game, and it is just as "good" as the next. Each group has their own style, as eah player does. The group I play with optimizes heavily, but we still like coming up with interesting character concepts and philosophies (anthropomorphic otter and illumian dropped in a cage by a roc in the middle of the city being two). But for instance, we would never abandon the point buy system like YRM's group because we've all seen the wide range of character stats that can occur, and how bad rolls can screw over some players. Does that make my group better? No. Just different. In the end, the only thing that matters is if you have fun.
Okay, just wanted to clarify. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/13/2006 10:59 AM |
| Okay, now to clarify what *i* was saying...
I don't mean to say that optimizing is automatically done to the expense of role-playing. I'm just saying that i don't believe one particular style of play "has it all" as suggested by YRM. If you have one style, it's to the detriment of another (obviously). It's not good or bad of better or worse, i believe it is just like that. Like if you're tall, you're not short. If you're dark, you're not light-colored. I believe you when you state that your group is very intense in its role-playing and PC optimization both. Perhaps you role-play even more than our group that, i believe, leans more towards the role-play side of things than PC optimization. I.e., it is quite possible that not only is your group better at optimizing PCs, but on top of that your role-play experience is more immersive and better accomplished than our own (if it can be quantified at all).
What i'm saying, is that PC optimization has consequences, in the players' mindsets. (Again, no judgement by me here. Truly. I'm insisting, because like you i've read over and over all the threads in forums past on this topic, and i'm not a proponent of that mentality that suggests roll vs role player. At all.) If you're optimizing, you're probably less intuitive, for the lack of finding another expression to identify the opposite of optimization. Then again, intuition is probably not the right word, because you can have intuition mixed into knowledge and number-crunching optimization. Anyway, when you optimize, you don't follow your nose as much, you follow logic. Logic is, of course, probably the most efficient way to go about doing this. But i find that, sometimes, logic has to let go, for some simple "use the force" gaming. That make sense?
This being said, i don't totally let go of the optimization side of things. Like i said, everyone does it to a certain degree, as do i. I don't mind people that do it, be it more or less than what i care to do. I just don't participate in some min-maxing discussions if i don't want to. It's a matter of each person finding his own comfort zone, as a player and hopefully as a group of players.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 12/13/2006 11:28 AM |
| | I just want to pipe in that I don't think figuring out that flurrying is usually a good idea counts as optimization - more just learning the way the game works. Once you figure it out, you don't ever have to figure it out again, whereas character optimization is more about constantly looking for that edge, whether it is via new items, new feats, stuff you saw on the character optimization board, etc.
I tend to do a lot of things like figuring out the best tactics I can use with (what I hope are) the character-driven feat/stat choices I make, but not a lot of things like figuring out broken feat combination #32, if that makes sense. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/13/2006 11:37 AM |
| If you have one style, it's to the detriment of another (obviously).
That's what GSS's link was refuting though.
For example, when another DM talks about what a great story they have, or how story-driven their campaign is, it doesn't mean that their player impact, tactical combat, and party effectiveness are diminished.
I mean, time wise, if you have 5 combats, you have less time, in that session, for Role Play.
So, to that extent, sure.
But a great writer doesn't necessarily lack encyclopedic knowledge of the rules.
I guess you can say that it's hard to have the creative energy to put into every aspect of the game, and, perhaps, if you're writing an Elaine Cunningham story for every FR setting adventure, you have less time to prepare the mechanics.
I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. Thankfully, the other DM/Player, and several other players, fill in the gaps and we're pretty quick to resolve stuff now.
I'm far from a world class writer, but, the story and NPCs aren't one-dimensional by any stretch.
I guess I'm above average at strategy & tactics.
---
Convention story again... There's a DM running a session, and, her role-play and story elements were quite strong. I enjoyed what she did, and I've reused a few of her techniques to improve on what I was doing.
She was terrible at tactical combat and the rules... which actually made her story and RP less effective in the long run. A buddy of mine died in an unbalanced encounter where an 11 d6 fireball (regular fireball now) hit a larger radius than it possibly could have hit.
He said, "I'd care more about the story if my PC wasn't dying based on random DM judgements about things she didn't bother to look up."
So maybe if she wrote a short story in print, and I wrote one in print, her story would be better.
But in actual D&D terms, the gestalt of everything working together makes a "B" story seem better.
If you build a website, and the design is great, it doesn't mean that the writing and development stink (and if they do, and the site has errors in code and spelling, it diminishes the design).
You can get away with a site that is fairly well designed, solidly programmed, and moderately well written.
However a site with great back-end functionality, and superior writing, will leave a bad impression if it looks like a 6th grader (or an engineer) designed the interface.
So I think D&D is similar in that you have various areas of technique and creativity that are at least somewhat measureable. Then, if you compare two good campaigns that are run differently, but are strong in most aspects, it's subjective which one is "better".
There's no one right answer... like what is the world's best website? There are lots of good, professional sites. But if you had to categorize 1,000 sites, you could probably group them into various grades of quality.
But not every site, or every campaign, is created equal either.
There is probably a campaign out there that I or my players could join, and we'd say, "Wow, the miniature useage and tactics are better, the story is better, the role play is better... it's better across the board. Nothing is cliche! It's balanced perfectly! We have just enough freedom." And if we ran into it, I can promise I'd be trying to adopt (re: steal) as much of that technique from the other DM as humanly possible.
We're alike in at least one way for sure. You seem to be looking for ways to improve on certain aspects of your game.
I've written plenty of "How would you do this?" threads myself (and still do).
Good stuff.
| |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
jgsugden
Commander
4320 Posts
Walnut Creek, CA
| | 12/13/2006 11:42 AM |
| There is a difference between optimizing and being smart.
Optimizing, as IanB mentions, is searching out every option to get the most out of a character in any given situation.Â
Being smart is looking for good ideas without sweating the small stuff.
However, people may disagree on what constitutes small stuff.
IMHO - Optimizing: Building a spreadsheet that automatically calculates the optimal combination of normal attack/flurry of blows and power attack given the AC/AB disparity involved in a combat.
IMHO - Being smart: Estimating the total damage you'd deal using flurry of blows against an opponent of a guessed AC and the damage you'd deal using a normal attack and figuring out which is a better option against that opponent.
They sound similar, but the effort that goes into each option is drastically different.Â
I have certain estimating tools that I consider to be optimizing tools. They're not as detailed as what I've described above, but they help me (as a DM) isolate what an exceptionally intelligent and wise enemy might do in a combat when they have a bunch of options. I never use these tools as a PC (although some of the information I've gleamed from these tools have influenced my PC combat techniques). | |
Champion of Meepo _*_ Myztek on the Wizards Boards. _*_ (2206 DDM on 03/06/06)
Please note: The use of the indicates an attempt at humor ... often a bad attempt.
BAD EBAY SELLERS LIST (CLICK HERE): AVOID AT ALL COSTS
| |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/13/2006 2:18 PM |
| We all optimize at least a bit. This is why no one uses a club as his main PC weapon. The question is: when is it too much? I think that there is no clear line beyond which optimization becomes too much. It depends on each person. It is a relative value.
Likewise, from my standpoint, there is not "optimal game", since there are parameters in a game that vary from one player to the next to evaluate how good a game is. Some parameters most gamers will agree on, while for others there is important dissension. But, agree or not on a given game evaluation parameter, the fact remains, IMO, that this parameter is purely subjective, coming from the eye of the beholder. Overall, consequently, the evaluation of a game will differ from one gamer to the next.
This is why i say that optimizing will be done to the expense of something. Likewise for role-playing. Likewise for anything. Whatever you take resources for, not only time, but also mental or psychological resources, in-game energy, it will impact the game. If you focus on optimization, you're not doing something else. What would your mind be doing if not trying to optimize? Nothing? Of course not. Role-playing? Not necessarily. So, what's the answer to that question?
There lies my message.
My impression from the replies i get is that my message is not coming across right (although i do not feel animosity towards me, should i specify, nor am i feeling any towards anyone in this thread or forum, for that matter. Better to say things clearly sometimes as written messages do not always convey the intended expressions clearly. I... i... i love you all. Bahhhhhhhh [*crying*] ).
I am under the impression that my message is still perceived as suggesting that if you're trying to optimize your character, you're doing it to the expense of some role-playing. This is not my intention.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 12/13/2006 3:28 PM |
| To clarify my own definitions a little bit:
Optimizing or min/maxing: something you do when building a character
Tactics: knowing when to flurry in actual play | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 12/14/2006 12:27 PM |
| | Learning to yield: tactic for a successful mariage | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/18/2006 7:55 AM |
| Posted By Skyscraper on 12/14/2006 12:27 PM Learning to yield: tactic for a successful mariage
Yeah, learning what battles to fight is key... although, some women enjoy a bit of conflict and don't actually want a guy to be a pushover, even if they are being demanding. It's a fine line.
---
One last thing about Monks though, while I'm thinking of it.
In this thread, we've touched on all the ways that Monks are immune to so many things... best saves, SR, poison immune, improved evasion, high stackable AC, etc.
It's also been touched on that, with a high WIS score, and Listen and Spot as class skills, and not having to sleep in armor, a Monk is very Alert.
If a monk takes Quick Reconnoiter (+2 init and Spot or Listen actively as a free action) and Improved Inititative, this makes a Monk ALMOST immune to sneak attacks.
If a Monk has +30 to Spot, +26 to Listen, 80' movement and +12 iniatitive, it's VERY hard to sneak up on a Monk or catch the Monk flat footed. I also took the Blind Fight feat.
There should be very few surprise rounds against the party and very few times when an enemy goes before the Monk.
Monks can then avoid flanking with speed and tumble, and Sense Motive is Wisdom and BaB based against Improved Feint.
All of these things combine to give the Monk high resistance against being vulnerable to sneak attacks.
So, with the right build, add another major damage threat that the Monk can virtually take off of the table against himself.
| |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 12/18/2006 12:34 PM |
| | It should be noted that immunity to sneak attacks is not terribly difficult for any armor-using character to achieve in a game with access to equipment customization, though - and spending the money on gear is typically a lot less of an investment than using one of your precious, precious feats. Feats are probably the single most rare/important commodity a character has to spend. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 12/20/2006 5:09 AM |
| Feats are probably the single most rare/important commodity a character has to spend.
Right, but, Quick Reconoiter, Blind Fight, Improved Initiative, Sun School, Pain Touch, Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike are all feats that benefit my build in multiple ways. Quick Reconoiter lets me pinpoint invisible foes with a spot check as a free action, and, at +30, it's not that hard to pinpoint an invisible creature moving at less than a "hide" speed.
I go first, partnered with a rogue/barbarian, and we set up flanks when possible or beneficial.
Good stealth, and top-notch spot/listen mean that we're more likely to get a surprise round than give one.
Extra damage comes from Monk's Belt and Enlarge. Extra attacks come from Flurry and Haste. Extra armor comes from Barkskin. Extra attack bonus comes from Greater Magic Fang.
The party doesn't have a pure ranger type, but, there are 3 of us in the group capable of setting a watch that is just about impossible to sneak past (unless you're ethereal or teleporting).
Fortification armor is great, but, a Monk can't wear it to protect his squishy HP against sneak attacks, and a fighter can't wear it to bed (if medium or heavy).
If I was shooting for a PrC, or had BaB to burn on Power Attacking branch feats, I might have chosen differently, but as it is, these feats have multiple uses and come in handy multiple times per session.
It helps that we're fighting a lot of sneaky foes in the underdark too. | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |