Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts_
Well, they are "balanced" in a way that all maneuvers have serious drawbacks...
All-out-attack(Feint)? ....
Umm, that would not be a limitation in your model if it was always like this. But: Skill 20 vs 20, thats attack 20 vs. defense 13 or defense 16 with a +2 shield and combat reflexes.
Assuming my math is correct, the chance to hit with 20 vs 13 reduced to 16 vs 11 is ... 42.6%, including automatical hits on a crit of <= 6.
If you further reduce to 14 vs 10 the chance to hit is 46.3%, but you have less good crits and risk more crit fails.
It's more pronounced with attack 20 vs. defense 16. Reduced to 16 vs 13 that's a 23.7% chance to hit, 14 vs. 12 is 24.9% and 12 vs 11 is 28.9%.
Anyway, I can see why 16 is a good point to land on, but it's not always the sweet spot for the chance to hit. I guess 75% less critical failures make up for 20% less hits, but I'm not entirely sure.
Regards, Ts
|
Im assumign that AOA (Feint, Attack) is balanced by the fact that you get no defense. This is, of course, more true in the general case than for a specific case in which it may not be true at all. For example if you have DR over your ENTIRE body which is more than the Damage the opponent can deliver on every turn, and the opponent has a High Active Defense, then Swing Away!
Your math IS right. Or at the very least, my chart agrees with you. :)
The trick is that for 20 Attack vs 16 AD we see that
16 v 14 = 17.5
but
14 v 13 = 16.3
That extra -2:-1 step DECREASES your odds of hitting by 1.2%, not alot but it gets more severe (as you might expect).
For 20 v 13 we have
20 v 13 = 23.7%
12 v 9 = 47.0%
10 v 8 = 37.5%
Which drops your odds by 12.5% !
which again seems reasonable when considering that past 12, were 'giving up' more area under the curve to hit and not gaining enough on the 'fails his defense' side.
Nymdok