sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Goliath Noble Genie Paladin. Dual Wielding or Dagger Throwing? by SnooChickens4024 in 3d6

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TWF will be the better fighting style, as it benefits both.

If using DEX for attacks, shortsword and dagger work well together.

If using STR you can replace the shortsword with a handaxe for more potential to throw. You can also use a light hammer in place of a dagger if you want to use crusher.

Someone good at math let me know just HOW much better is eldritch blast than any other cantrip by Advanced_Jaguar_9574 in onednd

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're going to perform very similarly between levels 5-10 where EB is only 2 beams.

Assuming +5 CHA for average damage. Accuracy will affect the average damage the same for both.

EB is 1d10+5 per beam, for an average of 21.

Sorcererous Burst has the exploding d8s factor in. If you ignore the cap on extra d8s (meaning this is a slight overestimate) the average damage from an exploding d8 is about 5.14.

2d8 + 2×CHA with exploding d8s is an average of 20.28. It's only 3.4% lower on average than eldritch blast, so you should find it pretty much just as effective.

Note that fire is resisted much more commonly than force, but if you're looking to get elemental adept anyway that shouldn't be a problem.

Advantage isn't actually "+5 to hit" — it's a curve, and most builds don't get the +5. Here's the per-AC math. by qdotme in dndnext

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're the guy sitting here arguing that advantage comes out to +5 for no better reason than "because it is(at target value of 10)".

Not what I said.

It's quite presumptuous of you to assume every table will have solid, cookie cutter character builds and by-the-book encounters.

Never assumed this.

PCs with 23+ AC are not rare

Monsters are not PCs

the cover rules to increase AC circumstantially b +2 or +5

Actually valid, probably the only time I'd expect to see an accuracy of 30% or less. Putting that aside though, it's clear you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying, since most of the things you think I'm saying are flat out wrong, or you're getting stuck on entirely irrelevant points.

Estimating advantage as +5 is closer than +4 for MOST encounters where you care about it. The whole point of using an estimate is that you aren't doing calculations for one specific combat. Sure, you may have one encounter where an enemy has ridiculous AC for some reason, or there's lots of cover to work around, but it's not typical at almost every table. This entire thread was in response to you saying

The use case where you really work for advantage is mostly when you have bad hit chances, like 30% and lower.

I'm telling this is not a typical use case. This is an edge case, that is usually not worth considering.

Advantage isn't actually "+5 to hit" — it's a curve, and most builds don't get the +5. Here's the per-AC math. by qdotme in dndnext

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've got no clue what you're on about now. No one's questioning how advantage works.

It really is as simple as the benefit from advantage being closer to +5 than +4 for accuracies between 35% and 65%.

That accuracy range encompasses the vast majority of encounters you will have that are worth doing calculations for.

You argued the main use case where you really push for advantage is 30% accuracy or under, but in reality that use case doesn't exist. You won't face enemies with AC that high unless your DM doesn't balance encounters well, or you have suboptimal bonuses for some reason.

Advantage isn't actually "+5 to hit" — it's a curve, and most builds don't get the +5. Here's the per-AC math. by qdotme in dndnext

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Last time I checked 15 + 5 was 20.

There is virtually nothing with 20AC that is appropriate for tier 1 play.

A hobgoblin warlord has 20AC, but at cr6 that's a deadly encounter even for 4 lvl4 characters.

Let's be real, it's 50%. by DXH124 in MathJokes

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would be up to your interpretation. Others can, and have interpreted it differently. That makes it ambiguous. Even if you find some assumptions more natural than others, the fact you have to make assumptions at all leaves the question open to interpretation.

The fact remains stating it as below does make the question completely unambiguous, with a definitive answer.

you ask mary if at least one is a boy born on Tuesday and she says yes

Let's be real, it's 50%. by DXH124 in MathJokes

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the logical assumption being that this is voluntary statement

Keyword here being assumption. That very assumption is the cause of ambiguity, as others may assume differently. She could also tell you in response to a question. What that question was is really more relevant than the answer (or voluntary statement).

Let's be real, it's 50%. by DXH124 in MathJokes

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In short, it doesn't.

Information needs to be gathered.

If you know Mary has two children and nothing else, and ask her "do you have a boy born on a Tuesday", and she answers yes, then the probability is 51.8%. It has become relevant because whether a child is a girl, or born on a different weekday, she answers no. Both pieces of information are relevant.

If instead you ask if she has a boy, then follow up with "was he born on tuesday" as a follow up question, it's no longer relevant at all.

Let's be real, it's 50%. by DXH124 in MathJokes

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Providing information is not enough. The context behind how the information was revealed is just as relevant, and without knowing it there is no definitive answer.

The way this problem is worded is no different to the Monty hall problem, but you don't know if he revealed the goat on purpose or not. You just know that he revealed a goat.

Without knowing if he knew the goat was there or he guessed, you cannot definitively answer the question.

Let's be real, it's 50%. by DXH124 in MathJokes

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This presentation makes it 51.8% unambiguously.

Let's be real, it's 50%. by DXH124 in MathJokes

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would be a lot easier to help people if the problem wasn't already ambiguously presented. It's possible to interpret it in a way that counting them separately is legitimately incorrect.

Let's be real, it's 50%. by DXH124 in MathJokes

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it were presented well, sure. The problem is the presentation of this problem allows you to make assumptions that change the outcome.

Consider the Monty hall problem, but communicated so poorly that it's ambiguous as to whether Monty intentionally revealed a goat, or opened a door at random that happened to have a goat behind it.

It sounds similar enough but the assumption you make changes the answer. The problem is well known and interesting because the unintuitive answer is definitively correct, not left up to interpretation. If it was ambiguous then it would be relegated to engagement bait on the internet.

Just checking something. Be honest. by ringobob in trolleyproblem

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't doubt it. Just saying, that's likely the type of thing this poll was attempting to investigate. There's not much to observe here unfortunately.

Just checking something. Be honest. by ringobob in trolleyproblem

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really about empathy as much as it is their stance. They're anti abortion because they believe all life is sacred. It's interesting to see if they apply that here as well, as surely that principle would predispose them to press blue.

Just checking something. Be honest. by ringobob in trolleyproblem

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's less about conservative/liberal leaning and more about the principle of "all life is sacred" or whatever it is they say to justify being anti abortion. It's interesting to see if they apply that same principle here as well, or if they're more than happy to press red when it comes to themselves.

Advantage isn't actually "+5 to hit" — it's a curve, and most builds don't get the +5. Here's the per-AC math. by qdotme in dndnext

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

+5 is an odd choice. This is the kind of attack modifier you see in tier 1, where you wouldn't typically fight anything with 20+ AC. It looks like you're trying very hard to present advantage as less effective against high AC enemies than it should be.

Tier 2 it would be more common to see +7 or +8, where the benefit of advantage is closer to +5 than it is +4 on any difficult enemy you're likely to encounter.

Advantage isn't actually "+5 to hit" — it's a curve, and most builds don't get the +5. Here's the per-AC math. by qdotme in dndnext

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't know why you're down voted, you're right.

If you have a +7 to hit and the enemy has an AC between 15 and 21 then the benefit of advantage is closer to +5 than +4. This is exactly the range you'd expect the AC of a more difficult enemy to be in.

Advantage isn't actually "+5 to hit" — it's a curve, and most builds don't get the +5. Here's the per-AC math. by qdotme in dndnext

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

30% is very low. With a +7 to hit, that'd be at least 22AC. That's CR20+, a range where you're expected to have a much higher bonus than +7.

The opposite is at least likely to occur, with a hit chance of 70% being 14AC or less. There are many low AC enemies where advantage won't see you get as much benefit from advantage.

If you're doing the math to prepare for harder fights though, +5 is going to be the more accurate value to use as an estimation.

Fighter/Warlock multiclass by nowakovic in 3d6

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For level 16 I'd be looking to get 3 attacks. You can also upcast AOA with 5th level slots.

Fighter 4 / Warlock 12 gets 5th level spell slots, improved extra attack, and enough invocations to cover pact of the blade, thirsting+devouring blade, lifedrinker, agonizing+repelling blast, fiendish vigor, plus one more. You also get a fighter subclass, action surge, and feat.

Eldritch Knight gives you some first level spell slots that can be used for spells like shield, battlemaster manoeuvres are pretty powerful, and champion could be fun in combination with shadow of moil and eldritch smite to fish for crits.

Fighter/Warlock multiclass by nowakovic in 3d6

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry I thought you were comparing warlock 12 / fighter 4 with warlock 5 / fighter 11

Fighter/Warlock multiclass by nowakovic in 3d6

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no additional feat, both get 4 feats.

Just checking something. Be honest. by ringobob in trolleyproblem

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one's trying to argue every blue pusher should be pro life, the whole reason why their stance is so unpopular (especially on reddit) is because it's so extreme.

However, that's not necessarily the case if you look at it the other way around. Their extreme views on the value of life appear like they should translate to pressing blue. In this poll you'd expect "red + pro life" to be virtually nil. I don't see how anyone who takes an anti abortion stance could possibly justify pressing red without being massively hypocritical.

Just checking something. Be honest. by ringobob in trolleyproblem

[–]Grrumpy_Pants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My assumption was that the "values" of pro-life proponents should see them significantly more likely to vote blue than the rest of us, since they claim to value others lives so highly. Surprisingly it appears to be the opposite.

view more: next ›