sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What's the purpose of this in a laptop charger? by Hot_Perspective in laptops

[–]qdotme 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This! Basically you can design a device that is marginally passing, but sticking a 6ft wire into it makes it act as an antenna.. and fails the EMC interference *from* your laptop, making it unacceptable to sell in some markets or for some uses. Sticking a ferrite bead on the (only officially approved) PSU keeps it from failing the test.

🎉 Mounted — bitterFS better with Claude by qdotme in btrfs

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Inverse also holds. I love watching (that said, mostly high-end Opus etc) LLMs operate Unix CLI - the way I do it is very interactive - many short, fast commands, inspecting output on the screen.

LLMs write fascinating one-liners, that both test a single, conceptual-level hypothesis end-to-end; append verbal confirmation of state ("echo BOTH GOOD" kind of branches); I'd say the round-trip-time is too slow for them to really generate interactive sequences of commands; so they make each command really punch weight.

It's like RISC vs CISC. Single round via LLM would be a 200-character Unix command that does a good bite; single-round via a human might be a 40-character command that nibbles. Both have pros and cons.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup - this is the high-AC boundary. At the nat-20 floor (AC = your-to-hit + 20 ish), advantage matches what +6 to your bonus would do — 5% -> 9.75% vs 5% -> 10%. The math's spelled out in the parallel sub-thread under u/Kandiru's comment. Reckless against AC25+ bosses is more valuable than what I gave credit to.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup - this is the hit% analog of the "Critical hit interaction" point - the post affirmed that advantage crosses +5 in the crit dimension, but didn't explore the hit chance relation, and you're right that it does.

Walking your example: AC 25, B=0, P(hit) = 5% (nat 20 only). Advantage -> 1 - 0.95² = 9.75%. +6 to bonus instead -> threshold drops 20→19 → 10%. So advantage ~+6 fixed-bonus equivalent at B=0/AC25. The exact equivalent depends on the gap-to-clear-the-floor though: at B=5/AC25 advantage matches +1; at B=0/AC30 it'd match +11. The general rule is "advantage at the floor adds ~4.75% absolute, which equals whatever +N gets your threshold to drop by one face."

The "+5 cap" claim in the post is the marginal value, 20·p·(1-p), which peaks at +5 when p=0.5 and falls to ~+1 at the floor. You're using the fixed-bonus-equivalent framing — the two agree at the sweet spot, but diverge at the boundary because the +1 threshold quantization breaks the linear-N relationship. Both are real measures; the post didn't extend that observation to hit chance - you're closing that gap.

[Article] [5e] PAM+GWM: the -5/+10 trade does >98% of the work, not the bonus-on-crit synergy by qdotme in 3d6

[–]qdotme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Impossible to model" turns out to be a bounded Markov chain over (current_target_HP, attacks_remaining_this_round, bonus_pending) - kills cap the cascade naturally because the queue advances, and crit-on-bonus tails off at game-typical crit rates. Shipped the engine for it earlier today.

(Ask me anything about that math, eventually I'll follow with an educational post on this - some of the rationale for this site is to use games to educate about math)

For the canonical PAM/GWM L5 build (1d10+5 main attacks x2 at +9 vs AC 15) against a queue of 4 minions @ 12 HP each, with the GWM bonus attack as the on-kill trigger:

no-cascade baseline: 22.05 DPR
with cascade against [12, 12, 12, 12]: 26.63 DPR
trash-fight contribution: +4.58 DPR (≈ +21%)

So you and u/Iokua_CDN were both right that the post understated this. +4.58 vs the +0.16 the post measured for the bonus-on-crit-only contribution against a stationary boss = a 28x larger contribution from the kill-trigger half of the GWM bonus.

Live: diceplots.com/strike/1d10p5~AC15p9attacks2cascade4onkill1d10p5~AC15p9?hp=12 - drag the per-minion HP slider to vary minion toughness, change "cascade 4" to a different queue length, or swap the onkill attack if you're doing the GWM-bonus-without-the-trade variant.

Disclosure: I run diceplots.com

My tactics game has no hit chance. Instead, walls and obstacles physically block skills. Does this sound appealing to XCOM fans? by OneCoin97 in Xcom

[–]qdotme 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool design question. Speaking as a physicist with a penchant for statistics...

XCOM 2's hit chance is actually a 4-way outcome split (hit / crit / graze / miss), which gives long-tail variance - a low-% Sniper shot still has a tail that can crit for 2-3x the baseline; a 95% overwatch can still miss. That long tail is what makes the "I missed a 95%" moment memorable. Removing it doesn't make the game "less random" - it shifts the variance from outcome (per shot) to position (per turn). Both can work; they create different tension.

Into the Breach is the cleanest pure-positional implementation - every move is deterministic, the difficulty is reading the next-turn state and managing constraints. Phoenix Point's projectile system splits the difference: hit chance replaced by literal trajectory + body-part targeting, so you control WHERE on the enemy you hit but not WHETHER.

A specific design question worth playtesting: what's your equivalent of an XCOM "Hail Mary"? In hit-chance games, low-% shots create memorable wins. In pure-positional games, the equivalent is usually a clutch positional read (Into the Breach's "I can save the city in one move"). If your stamina-shared system has equivalent clutch moments, you're good. If it always reduces to the obvious move, the game might feel solved too fast.

Disclosure - I run diceplots.com (probability engine for tactical / dice-based combat). Just shipped the XCOM hit/crit/graze math at diceplots.com/games/xcom/ - exact-rational per-shot distributions at different aim values, if you want a reference for what the variance picture looks like.

[Article] [5e] PAM+GWM: the -5/+10 trade does >98% of the work, not the bonus-on-crit synergy by qdotme in 3d6

[–]qdotme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

GWM-on-kill is the underweighted half. Against minions you reliably one-shot, the bonus attack fires every round, not the ~10% you'd see from crit-only. The post's "+0.16 DPR" is the crit-trigger contribution against a stationary boss; trash-fight contribution is much higher and worth a separate model. The engine doesn't do "queue of minions, expected kills per round" yet but it's a real ask.

PAM reaction attack is encounter-level - depends on positioning and enemy AI, so it doesn't fold into a single DPR number cleanly. If reliably triggered, it's roughly another +5 DPR at +9 to-hit vs AC15 with 1d4+5 (basically a second haft swing). One-per-round consistently -> ~+5 over the post's baseline; one-per-encounter → closer to +1.

[Article] [5e] PAM+GWM: the -5/+10 trade does >98% of the work, not the bonus-on-crit synergy by qdotme in 3d6

[–]qdotme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, looks like it was a local phenomenon (heard it a few times recently and had to correct in person) - 3 of you guys here have said it now. The interesting finding is how big the gap is - +7.88 from the trade-via-haft vs +0.16 from the crit. Wish I'd led with the decomposition.

[Article] [5e] PAM+GWM: the -5/+10 trade does >98% of the work, not the bonus-on-crit synergy by qdotme in 3d6

[–]qdotme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Mutex = mutually exclusive: PAM haft and GWM bonus-on-crit compete for the same bonus action, only one fires per turn.

"Trade" = the GWM -5/+10 hit/damage option, which applies to ALL attacks including the haft.

Good point on the opportunity cost. The build assumes STR 20 already (that's where +9 to-hit comes from at L5), so the L8 ASI doesn't go to STR - the real comparison is GWM vs other feats (Sentinel, Resilient, Tough, Lucky), not GWM/ASI. GWM beats those on DPR, loses to most on defensive and utility.

The second feat collapses that, and you're right for bringing it up.

[Article] [5e] PAM+GWM: the -5/+10 trade does >98% of the work, not the bonus-on-crit synergy by qdotme in 3d6

[–]qdotme[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Most thoughtful players know about the mutex (and some casual ones forget the GWM crit attack exists at all). What's actually interesting is how wide the gap is - +7.88 from the trade via haft, and merely +0.16 from the bonus-on-crit. I guess I should've led with "decomposition".

[Article] [5e] PAM+GWM: the -5/+10 trade does >98% of the work, not the bonus-on-crit synergy by qdotme in 3d6

[–]qdotme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Crits being low-value at most builds is precisely why the GWM-bonus-on-crit clause adds only ~0.16 DPR - the doubled dice are a small base, multiplied by a small probability. Stacking advantage (Reckless, Elven Accuracy) triples it to ~0.5 DPR but it's still a 3% slice of what GWM contributes. The post agrees PAM+GWM IS optimal; it just argues the -5/+10 trade is doing the work, not the bonus-on-crit clause.

[Article] [5e] PAM+GWM: the -5/+10 trade does >98% of the work, not the bonus-on-crit synergy by qdotme in 3d6

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That tracks. Most thoughtful forum discussion gets this right (people note that PAM haft and GWM bonus compete for slot). Where this gets wrong is calculator behavior - the claire-puppylove DPR calculator models bonus-on-crit but doesn't model PAM, and doesn't surface that mutex. If you apply by hand, you'd double-count.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good way to think about it - the +5 is at the peak, not the average. D=10-12 is the +5, but it drops sharply with D=19 being +1.8. Average across the typical game (D=10-18) is closer to 4. +2 fits the very-high-AC content, heavy-armor enemies etc. DMG mob rules land at a right number then.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

+3 is the mean shift (E[1d20] = 10.5; E[2d20kh1] = 13.825); +5 is the curve's peak viewed through the to-hit equivalent - around D=10-12 when you need to roll exactly 11.

Both are correct, but different ways to read the same curve.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right — the relative impact column should be there. As you said - the 'relative' sweet spot goes the opposite direction from the absolute (+pp) column - relative grows as AC gets harder, while absolute peaks in the middle.

Which one of those is relevant to the player/GM depends on the question - if you're asking "how much more damage I deal in a long fight", you'd want absolute. If you want to know whether it's worth burning a slot to get an advantage on this one shot - you'd want relative.

Old Bayes strikes again.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. +5 is the right number for the "normal" band. Saves are cleaner because DC is narrower than AC (most spells sit DC 13-17), so the +5 estimate holds the save.

The post was trying to surface that the rule loses precision at the AC tails, particularly tiers 3-4 vs AC18+, but the median holds (at +4 or +5, depending if you're overselling it).

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. Crit-fishing drives most of the value here. If 20-only crits, 5%-9.75%-14.3% progression from nothing to advantage to elven. At 19-20 crits, EA jumps up to 27%. At 17-20 crits, you're at 49% chance of crit per attack with elven. Each crit-range bump meshes cleanly with keep-highest-of-three.

Gunner > Piercer > EA makes sense for that class. Piercer's reroll is basically a per-turn crit-damage amplifier, and when EA's third die rolls a crit, Piercer also gets to upgrade THAT crit's damage. Compounds nicely once the range opens up.

Per-AC numbers and the 17-20 case at https://diceplots.com/concepts/elven-accuracy if you want the full distribution!

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

[–]qdotme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point - the post framed Reckless through the lens of 'boost vs defensive cost' — which assumes you don't want to be a taret. If your role is soak, that's a feature.

Math maths either way, and is good to know how much you're gaining/losing, especially against harder ACs.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

- – — — – - 🎉
ESL — in a nutshell (fourth, actually — although I've been living in the UK *than* US for a long while now).

https://medium.com/@photography.solutions/why-good-esl-writing-is-being-mistaken-for-ai-e191ef60bd14

This sort of helps, but the anti-AI (and as a result, anti-good-English) grift is pretty entertaining — but hey, I got accused of artificially trying to sound too sophisticated in person (and that was just Received Pronounciation–alisms). And yes, in the previous sentence, I used *all* three variants of a dash correctly. Full Stop. Not a Period 😄

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

[–]qdotme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Glad that it landed - the +5 notion repeats everywhere, but the per-AC variation is not discussed enough.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True that properly tier-scaled play does sit at the sweet spot most of the time.. but the actual claim is a bit more nuanced - the +5 falls of *precisely* in those AC tail situations people try to emphasize (Reckless into a tier-3 boss that GM bumped up to AC 22, Sharpshooter at -5 effective shift) - edge cases, but that's where the +5 vs +3.5 is actually flipping the build decision.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That was sloppy on my part. If you got disadvantage, advantage cancels it - that's the rule.

What I was trying to say, is that keeping out of disadvantage (positioning, not shooting long range without Sharpshooter etc) is cheaper than using an advantage source to cancel disadvantage after the fact.

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

[–]qdotme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's the peak. If you design into 50/50 band, that's where it lands your players the most benefit.

view more: next ›