Evaluate useless? (from Why Wait)

[Siddhartha]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Bad Siddhartha, still no cookie for you.

You absolutely need to include the probability of two successes, and since it's much better to hit twice, than to merely hit once, that makes your posts all the stranger.

No cookie for me yet? hehe

Now i guess i should say:

Originally Posted by aesir23

No fair comparing the chance to hit at-least-once with the chance to hit twice. Apples and oranges.

and:

Originally Posted by Dinadon

The comparison is getting one successful attacks in two turns, thus you need to count the situations where only one of those attacks hits.

aesir23 showed my mistake and I did just what Dinadon said. Unless you disagree with that. Or I made another mistake.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Siddhartha

aesir23 showed my mistake and I did just what Dinadon said. Unless you disagree with that. Or I made another mistake.

The mistake you're making is misreading "getting one successful attack in two turns", to not mean "getting at least one successful attack in two turns", no one actually has to write in that "at least", it's understood to be there from context.

The comparison between taking two shots at 12- vs taking a single shot at 13- has been clearly demonstrated.

Or to put it in simpler terms, if with skill 12- you can attack 20 times doing 1d-1 points of damage, (2.5 dmg), evaluating once each gets you 10 attacks at 13- so you'll do 21 points of damage, at 12- you'll get 20 attacks and do 37 points of damage.

So attacking twice at 12- is over 175% as effective as attacking once at 13-.

Still no cookie for you.

[Siddhartha]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

The mistake you're making is misreading "getting one successful attack in two turns", to not mean "getting at least one successful attack in two turns", no one actually has to write in that "at least", it's understood to be there from context.

The comparison between taking two shots at 12- vs taking a single shot at 13- has been clearly demonstrated.

Or to put it in simpler terms, if with skill 12- you can attack 20 times doing 1d-1 points of damage, (2.5 dmg), evaluating once each gets you 10 attacks at 13- so you'll do 21 points of damage, at 12- you'll get 20 attacks and do 37 points of damage.

So attacking twice at 12- is over 175% as effective as attacking once at 13-.

Still no cookie for you.

Okay, dude... no cookie for me today... maybe next time! hehe

[ismenis]

Just an addition to the summary as to why you might want to evaluate:

If you're facing someone with so much DR that you could only penetrate it by targetting chinks/hitting an unarmored location, or by using CA(Determined)/AoA

As for the possibility for hitting the wrong target, another (more likely than a hostage holding demon) example might be attacking someone who's in CC with a friendly PC/NPC

Need to head down to the shops. Will edit if I can think of something else.

[Wicked Lurker]

Originally Posted by ismenis

Just an addition to the summary as to why you might want to evaluate:

If you're facing someone with so much DR that you could only penetrate it by targetting chinks/hitting an unarmored location, or by using CA(Determined)/AoA

..only if that penalty for chinks takes you to an effective skill of 3 or 4. Otherwise attacking twice without the +1 has better odds than once with.

[ismenis]

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

..only if that penalty for chinks takes you to an effective skill of 3 or 4. Otherwise attacking twice without the +1 has better odds than once with.

Oh yes of course... then I guess it might only be useful in the CA/AoA case, if even then?

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

..only if that penalty for chinks takes you to an effective skill of 3 or 4. Otherwise attacking twice without the +1 has better odds than once with.

If you're applying some of the Harsh Realism Rules from MA, then you may want to Evaluate when targeting Chinks or a non-armored location, to reduce the chance of accidentally striking hard armor and injuring yourself. That's a pretty narrow case though...