Dodge-able, Irresistible Afflictions

[Stegyre]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Anyway, it was eye-opening to me at the time. As was that in 80% of the cases, QC vs Attack/Defense wasn't that big a deal.

Wait! What?

I did my own (probably far less professional or reliable) comparison, basically computing the odds of success in a quick contest context (measuring the attacker's likelihood of succeeding at anywhere from -5 to +5 of the defender's modifier), and also measuring success percentages for attack/defense rolls. They were nothing at all alike.

This goes along with the common intuition that changing combat from attack/defense rolls to a quick contest makes a BIG difference in how often defenders get hit.

Something's off somewhere. Most likely, I am fundamentally misunderstanding you. Can you re-explain?

(. . . as we pull the thread further O.T.)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Stegyre

Wait! What?

I did my own (probably far less professional or reliable) comparison, basically computing the odds of success in a quick contest context (measuring the attacker's likelihood of succeeding at anywhere from -5 to +5 of the defender's modifier), and also measuring success percentages for attack/defense rolls. They were nothing at all alike.

This goes along with the common intuition that changing combat from attack/defense rolls to a quick contest makes a BIG difference in how often defenders get hit.

Something's off somewhere. Most likely, I am fundamentally misunderstanding you. Can you re-explain?

(. . . as we pull the thread further O.T.)

I'll start a new thread. It's possible that our respective methodologies drove the results.

[Adelus]

Another question, and one that might make it hard to model this off Malediction...

What if the quick contest effect itself doesn't take range penalties?

The roll to hit with the spell's projectile takes penalties, but the effect itself isn't affected by those range penalties - or instead takes the +3 per 1/2D range to the defense roll in QC like an affliction's resistance roll.

EDIT: Or would this be a cause for using Malediction 3 as the base for longer-ranged spells?

[Ketsuban]

Originally Posted by Adelus

Another question, and one that might make it hard to model this off Malediction...

What if the quick contest effect itself doesn't take range penalties?

The roll to hit with the spell's projectile takes penalties, but the effect itself isn't affected by those range penalties - or instead takes the +3 per 1/2D range to the defense roll in QC like an affliction's resistance roll.

Applying the same -10 modifier to two separate dice rolls (the attack and the Quick Contest) renders the spell severely unhelpful. I suggest applying the principle from p B492 - when any rule gives a silly result, follow common sense instead. Only apply the range modifier to the attack, since that's the bit that's affected by range.

[Adelus]

Originally Posted by Ketsuban

Applying the same -10 modifier to two separate dice rolls (the attack and the Quick Contest) renders the spell severely unhelpful. I suggest applying the principle from p B492 - when any rule gives a silly result, follow common sense instead. Only apply the range modifier to the attack, since that's the bit that's affected by range.

Alright, I can see this making sense. You are already limiting it by just requiring another roll to hit and a chance for the opponent to dodge. Applying the same penalties to the QC might be seen as particularly cruel.

Taking 1/2D 10 and Max 100 as the base for this altered Malediction 2, we could just rule out applying the range penalties to the Will roll by fiat since we're getting the range penalties applied to the attack roll.

However, its a lot easier to get those penalties on the attack roll removed through actions like Aim and having access to advantages like Telescopic Vision, so I'm not sure its entirely fair to simply write off the penalties either.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Adelus

However, its a lot easier to get those penalties on the attack roll removed through actions like Aim and having access to advantages like Telescopic Vision, so I'm not sure its entirely fair to simply write off the penalties either.

It's also a lot easier to run into situations that give you penalties too - lighting, bad/obscuring weather, footing, target size and speed, and so forth all impact To Hit rolls and don't impact Malediction-based Quick Contests. Heck, the base Malediction doesn't even require line of sight/line of fire to the target - your to-hit roll will.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Stegyre

Wait! What?

I did my own (probably far less professional or reliable) comparison, basically computing the odds of success in a quick contest context (measuring the attacker's likelihood of succeeding at anywhere from -5 to +5 of the defender's modifier), and also measuring success percentages for attack/defense rolls. They were nothing at all alike.

This goes along with the common intuition that changing combat from attack/defense rolls to a quick contest makes a BIG difference in how often defenders get hit.

Something's off somewhere. Most likely, I am fundamentally misunderstanding you. Can you re-explain?

(. . . as we pull the thread further O.T.)

One quick note: my question that I modeled wasn't really "how often do defender's get hit?" it was "how often would a QC produce a different result than an attack/defense roll," which is not really the same thing.

[Stegyre]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

One quick note: my question that I modeled wasn't really "how often do defender's get hit?" it was "how often would a QC produce a different result than an attack/defense roll," which is not really the same thing.

For my work, it was the same: attacker hits if he wins QC, and attacker hits if he succeeds on attack roll and defender fails on defense roll. I'm not sure how one would consider it differently, but I'll take the discussion to the new thread. :)