It looks like Beau was making a LOT of rolls compared to others. Was this because of the Monk Flurry or Blows and Stunning Strike (which can turn a single roll into several)?
it is indeed. Also she is a subclass that through certain abilities at least in some versions of it could make d20 skill rolls tied to them to learn things about enemies and things like that. Though I believe that was adjusted as the campaign went on before it became what we know the Cobalt Soul as now.
But monks in general just make more rolls. Since they have more attacks to them by default. and then flurry available to them almost from the beginning. And anything that gives them advantage will just give them even more. Monks end up making a lot of rolls in general.
Edit and Note: Monks through many smaller rolls. Statistically tend to be one of the most consistent classes there is when it comes to damage output. The Numbers aren't as big but there are so many of them on such a regular basis that they more than make up for that fact. Which tends to make the monk stronger than it appears damage wise for a good portion of the levels.
Barbarians being another rather consistent class on damage Do it through somewhat fewer rolls that are bigger in result but rely more on Larger Static modifiers to maintain their consistent output instead. Though that kind of goes out the Window when it comes to criticals since static modifiers aren't multiplied for them.
For bad luck in rolls, Will Wheaton, on Critical Role, has to "take the cake!"
Out of 54 total rolls with a d20 (a very, very small sample size), he rolled a 1 or 2, 17 times! He rolled a 4 or lower, 25 out of 54 times! He rolled a 6 or lower, 31 times! He rolled a 9 or less, on 39 out of 54 rolls! That is mind bogglingly bad luck! Wow!
See I don't think I'm quite at Wil levels. But yes. He rolls poorly. For further examples of his rolling. Go watch his table top episodes or the couple of RPG things that he did for Geek and Sundry. He does get some good rolls in from time to time in those things but he rolls somewhat low on a surprisingly consistent basis.
As an interesting side note. One of the times that he had a decent run of better rolls as far as dice go in one of his shows. He was actually playing a game where he actually wanted to roll low instead of high. So his Curse seems to be somehow aware of the desirable outcome to avoid it. Making Wil an even stranger anomaly when it comes to luck.
It looks like Beau was making a LOT of rolls compared to others. Was this because of the Monk Flurry or Blows and Stunning Strike (which can turn a single roll into several)?
it is indeed. Also she is a subclass that through certain abilities at least in some versions of it could make d20 skill rolls tied to them to learn things about enemies and things like that. Though I believe that was adjusted as the campaign went on before it became what we know the Cobalt Soul as now.
But monks in general just make more rolls. Since they have more attacks to them by default. and then flurry available to them almost from the beginning. And anything that gives them advantage will just give them even more. Monks end up making a lot of rolls in general.
Edit and Note: Monks through many smaller rolls. Statistically tend to be one of the most consistent classes there is when it comes to damage output. The Numbers aren't as big but there are so many of them on such a regular basis that they more than make up for that fact. Which tends to make the monk stronger than it appears damage wise for a good portion of the levels.
Barbarians being another rather consistent class on damage Do it through somewhat fewer rolls that are bigger in result but rely more on Larger Static modifiers to maintain their consistent output instead. Though that kind of goes out the Window when it comes to criticals since static modifiers aren't multiplied for them.
I figured it was the result of her investigating (which she did a lot) and the way the Monk mechanics often work. 'I'm going to do my two attacks (two rolls plus any rolls for damage), then my flurry of blows (two rolls to hit plus damage). Since I hit two different guys with the Flurry, I want to burn Ki and do Stunning Strike on both (two MORE rolls). It's not that it's more or less effective, just that it takes lots of dice to get there.
What interests me as a part time statistician is percentages for the 20’s; the ones are generally around the 5% expected rate. But with 20’s showing up for some folks at 8-12% out of a couple of thousand rolls that is significant. Like the rest of you I want to see what the values look like after 10-20k rolls. If the rates are still the same those folks getting them might be latent subconscious telekinetic, that or they have learned to subconsciously affect the dice rolls with subtitle finger movements as they are rolling. You can do the same thing with a ouji board or a pendulum if you know what your doing.
What interests me as a part time statistician is percentages for the 20’s; the ones are generally around the 5% expected rate. But with 20’s showing up for some folks at 8-12% out of a couple of thousand rolls that is significant. Like the rest of you I want to see what the values look like after 10-20k rolls. If the rates are still the same those folks getting them might be latent subconscious telekinetic, that or they have learned to subconsciously affect the dice rolls with subtitle finger movements as they are rolling. You can do the same thing with a ouji board or a pendulum if you know what your doing.
Well I don't know how much they were used. But i believe for most players. Rolling Electronically on things like DDB was becoming more common as the campaign progressed (but I'd have to double check). I just don't know how much of the campaign had that going on or how prevalent it was with certain players. (I believe Jester/Vex's player still mostly rolled actual dice in the second campaign for example). So if it's true that for some reason the pseudo-random nature of digital dice rolls skews a bit towards extreme's plays a part in seeing those percentages somewhat higher. Though after a certain thresh-hold it seems like there should still be other factors at play. In particular the situations where we see a difference in their frequency of 3-5% over the 1's. Because you have to remember. In the Second Campaign. A couple of the People that rolled things like 8% or so in 20's were also above 5% in the amount of 1's they rolled as well.
It is also possible that with my conservative numbers those individual percentages were slightly high and if we made a more accurate count of only d20 rolls which might result in an overall higher pool of rolls. Those percentages might come down at least a bit. Putting at least some of those rolls down closer to 5%. But we would still have the issue of the difference in Ratio's between 1's and 20's that isn't so easy to resolve. Most particularly this is present in the Caduceus/Molly/Percy Player. Because he has shown to consistently roll close to or at a 2 to 1 ratio in favor of the 20's rolls across two seperate games. And one of them did not have the potential problem die called the golden snitch as a potential factor. He remained consistent in that regard somehow. A 2 to 1 Ratio is a significant deviation, particularly since the next closest individual and another one of the high deviations only factored in at about 3 to 2.
I have read a lot about how barbs should use a greataxe because of it's 1d12 damage die and how well it stacks with brutal critical. What I want to know is, is a greataxe better than a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting? I ask because I have no idea what formula to use to test this theory.
The formula to determine when its better to use GWM is: Maximum Armor Class (round down) = Attack Bonus – Average Damage / 2 + 16 The only difference between Greataxe and Greatsword for this formula is the average damage. The difference in average damage between a 1d12 and 2d6 is 0.5 damage. This isn't a big enough difference that it should change your choice of weapon when using GWM. Just pick what you want and enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
I have read a lot about how barbs should use a greataxe because of it's 1d12 damage die and how well it stacks with brutal critical. What I want to know is, is a greataxe better than a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting? I ask because I have no idea what formula to use to test this theory.
The formula to determine when its better to use GWM is: Maximum Armor Class (round down) = Attack Bonus – Average Damage / 2 + 16 The only difference between Greataxe and Greatsword for this formula is the average damage. The difference in average damage between a 1d12 and 2d6 is 0.5 damage. This isn't a big enough difference that it should change your choice of weapon when using GWM. Just pick what you want and enjoy.
Not following your formula. Would you mind going into it? I have seen other formulas, but trying to understand yours.
I have a fighter/barbarian with a +12 to hit and does 1d10 + 8 without GWM and +18 with it. Which damage average are you looking at? So you are saying I should be using it, basically all the time? I pretty much do, especially considering I have advantage on demand. Only when I know the extra damage isn't needed for the foe, do I not attack with GWM.
I have read a lot about how barbs should use a greataxe because of it's 1d12 damage die and how well it stacks with brutal critical. What I want to know is, is a greataxe better than a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting? I ask because I have no idea what formula to use to test this theory.
The formula to determine when its better to use GWM is: Maximum Armor Class (round down) = Attack Bonus – Average Damage / 2 + 16 The only difference between Greataxe and Greatsword for this formula is the average damage. The difference in average damage between a 1d12 and 2d6 is 0.5 damage. This isn't a big enough difference that it should change your choice of weapon when using GWM. Just pick what you want and enjoy.
Not following your formula. Would you mind going into it? I have seen other formulas, but trying to understand yours.
I have a fighter/barbarian with a +12 to hit and does 1d10 + 8 without GWM and +18 with it. Which damage average are you looking at? So you are saying I should be using it, basically all the time? I pretty much do, especially considering I have advantage on demand. Only when I know the extra damage isn't needed for the foe, do I not attack with GWM.
Torvald's formula would be the old average. So Max AC = 12 - 13.5/2 + 16 = 28-6.75 = 21.75, i.e. you should switch to GWM against AC 21 or less.
Just checked, and the formula checks out for your values - you should indeed use GWM against AC 21 or less, provided you don't have advantage on the attack roll. If you do (e.g. from Reckless Attack), the new cut-off is 23.
I have read a lot about how barbs should use a greataxe because of it's 1d12 damage die and how well it stacks with brutal critical. What I want to know is, is a greataxe better than a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting? I ask because I have no idea what formula to use to test this theory.
The formula to determine when its better to use GWM is: Maximum Armor Class (round down) = Attack Bonus – Average Damage / 2 + 16 The only difference between Greataxe and Greatsword for this formula is the average damage. The difference in average damage between a 1d12 and 2d6 is 0.5 damage. This isn't a big enough difference that it should change your choice of weapon when using GWM. Just pick what you want and enjoy.
Not following your formula. Would you mind going into it? I have seen other formulas, but trying to understand yours.
I have a fighter/barbarian with a +12 to hit and does 1d10 + 8 without GWM and +18 with it. Which damage average are you looking at? So you are saying I should be using it, basically all the time? I pretty much do, especially considering I have advantage on demand. Only when I know the extra damage isn't needed for the foe, do I not attack with GWM.
Torvald's formula would be the old average. So Max AC = 12 - 13.5/2 + 16 = 28-6.75 = 21.75, i.e. you should switch to GWM against AC 21 or less.
Just checked, and the formula checks out for your values - you should indeed use GWM against AC 21 or less, provided you don't have advantage on the attack roll. If you do (e.g. from Reckless Attack), the new cut-off is 23.
Appreciate it. I already have been attacking with GWM, pretty much all the time. Only time I don't is when something is clearly near death. With the -5, there is always a chance that I will miss, even given my + to hit and advantage. Sometimes the dice gods are with us, sometimes against us! ;) lol
Yeah, I have 6 levels of champion fighter and 3 levels of bear totem barbarian with a half orc, PAM and GWM. So on a crit with my main weapon attack, while raging, I do 3d10 + 20 damage. Advantage and expanded crit range can lead to some big numbers with three attacks. Then if I action surge it's five attacks that turn.
it is indeed. Also she is a subclass that through certain abilities at least in some versions of it could make d20 skill rolls tied to them to learn things about enemies and things like that. Though I believe that was adjusted as the campaign went on before it became what we know the Cobalt Soul as now.
But monks in general just make more rolls. Since they have more attacks to them by default. and then flurry available to them almost from the beginning. And anything that gives them advantage will just give them even more. Monks end up making a lot of rolls in general.
Edit and Note: Monks through many smaller rolls. Statistically tend to be one of the most consistent classes there is when it comes to damage output. The Numbers aren't as big but there are so many of them on such a regular basis that they more than make up for that fact. Which tends to make the monk stronger than it appears damage wise for a good portion of the levels.
Barbarians being another rather consistent class on damage Do it through somewhat fewer rolls that are bigger in result but rely more on Larger Static modifiers to maintain their consistent output instead. Though that kind of goes out the Window when it comes to criticals since static modifiers aren't multiplied for them.
See I don't think I'm quite at Wil levels. But yes. He rolls poorly. For further examples of his rolling. Go watch his table top episodes or the couple of RPG things that he did for Geek and Sundry. He does get some good rolls in from time to time in those things but he rolls somewhat low on a surprisingly consistent basis.
As an interesting side note. One of the times that he had a decent run of better rolls as far as dice go in one of his shows. He was actually playing a game where he actually wanted to roll low instead of high. So his Curse seems to be somehow aware of the desirable outcome to avoid it. Making Wil an even stranger anomaly when it comes to luck.
I figured it was the result of her investigating (which she did a lot) and the way the Monk mechanics often work. 'I'm going to do my two attacks (two rolls plus any rolls for damage), then my flurry of blows (two rolls to hit plus damage). Since I hit two different guys with the Flurry, I want to burn Ki and do Stunning Strike on both (two MORE rolls). It's not that it's more or less effective, just that it takes lots of dice to get there.
What interests me as a part time statistician is percentages for the 20’s; the ones are generally around the 5% expected rate. But with 20’s showing up for some folks at 8-12% out of a couple of thousand rolls that is significant. Like the rest of you I want to see what the values look like after 10-20k rolls. If the rates are still the same those folks getting them might be latent subconscious telekinetic, that or they have learned to subconsciously affect the dice rolls with subtitle finger movements as they are rolling. You can do the same thing with a ouji board or a pendulum if you know what your doing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Well I don't know how much they were used. But i believe for most players. Rolling Electronically on things like DDB was becoming more common as the campaign progressed (but I'd have to double check). I just don't know how much of the campaign had that going on or how prevalent it was with certain players. (I believe Jester/Vex's player still mostly rolled actual dice in the second campaign for example). So if it's true that for some reason the pseudo-random nature of digital dice rolls skews a bit towards extreme's plays a part in seeing those percentages somewhat higher. Though after a certain thresh-hold it seems like there should still be other factors at play. In particular the situations where we see a difference in their frequency of 3-5% over the 1's. Because you have to remember. In the Second Campaign. A couple of the People that rolled things like 8% or so in 20's were also above 5% in the amount of 1's they rolled as well.
It is also possible that with my conservative numbers those individual percentages were slightly high and if we made a more accurate count of only d20 rolls which might result in an overall higher pool of rolls. Those percentages might come down at least a bit. Putting at least some of those rolls down closer to 5%. But we would still have the issue of the difference in Ratio's between 1's and 20's that isn't so easy to resolve. Most particularly this is present in the Caduceus/Molly/Percy Player. Because he has shown to consistently roll close to or at a 2 to 1 ratio in favor of the 20's rolls across two seperate games. And one of them did not have the potential problem die called the golden snitch as a potential factor. He remained consistent in that regard somehow. A 2 to 1 Ratio is a significant deviation, particularly since the next closest individual and another one of the high deviations only factored in at about 3 to 2.
The formula to determine when its better to use GWM is: Maximum Armor Class (round down) = Attack Bonus – Average Damage / 2 + 16
The only difference between Greataxe and Greatsword for this formula is the average damage.
The difference in average damage between a 1d12 and 2d6 is 0.5 damage. This isn't a big enough difference that it should change your choice of weapon when using GWM. Just pick what you want and enjoy.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
Not following your formula. Would you mind going into it? I have seen other formulas, but trying to understand yours.
I have a fighter/barbarian with a +12 to hit and does 1d10 + 8 without GWM and +18 with it. Which damage average are you looking at? So you are saying I should be using it, basically all the time? I pretty much do, especially considering I have advantage on demand. Only when I know the extra damage isn't needed for the foe, do I not attack with GWM.
Torvald's formula would be the old average. So Max AC = 12 - 13.5/2 + 16 = 28-6.75 = 21.75, i.e. you should switch to GWM against AC 21 or less.
Just checked, and the formula checks out for your values - you should indeed use GWM against AC 21 or less, provided you don't have advantage on the attack roll. If you do (e.g. from Reckless Attack), the new cut-off is 23.
Appreciate it. I already have been attacking with GWM, pretty much all the time. Only time I don't is when something is clearly near death. With the -5, there is always a chance that I will miss, even given my + to hit and advantage. Sometimes the dice gods are with us, sometimes against us! ;) lol
Yeah, I have 6 levels of champion fighter and 3 levels of bear totem barbarian with a half orc, PAM and GWM. So on a crit with my main weapon attack, while raging, I do 3d10 + 20 damage. Advantage and expanded crit range can lead to some big numbers with three attacks. Then if I action surge it's five attacks that turn.