So you believe that when 3 other players roll under ten then the 4th player is better off rolling than just taking 10?My simulation assumed 1 player takes 10 if it would beat all the other rolls.
in which case your model doesn't take care of the circumstance when 3 people roll and end up with a 17, the last guy isn't going to take 10 because he may end up with 18-20.
edit: see a lot of people talking about variables. heuristics are a way to ignore uncontrollable variables. you set up a guideline and then follow that to determine what happens after you control all the controlled variables.
like you can't control a GM just house ruling something away, but we made a heuristic that the GM would be following it to RAW. a good heuristic is one that is correct the vast majority of the time, with the outlyers being edge cases.
Math is important. I think math will show that the potential benefit from many teamwork feats is bigger and better than the benefit from non-teamwork feats which grant similar bonuses. What's tougher to determine is how often you'll be able to set up the situation to enjoy the potential benefits of the teamwork feat, what consequences you'll suffer for doing so, and how often the benefit will be "worth it".
One thing math doesn't take into account is how the table will react to what you do. Parties who clump up might get zapped with a bunch of AoE, but those who split up could be subjected to divide and conquer tactics like Walls or even just a bunch of enemies ganging up on one isolated PC. It isn't just the DM involved in this since Invisible Flying Summoner might get left in the lurch by the other PCs when he gets in trouble more often than the "Come Follow Me!" melee tank who stands in front taking abuse for the rest of the team while he hands them bonuses.
It a crazy Barbarian with no pants snorts some magic mushroom spores and charges headlong into battle the DM also might let things slide a little more than if a 200+ DPR archer finally gets cornered by some melee mooks. There are people playing the games, and they're likely to react to the story you create in the ways they feel are appropriate.
Point is, some people try to say 'such and so feat is worthless and shouldn't exist/isn't ever worth taking' because its situational. Situational in one campaign may be common in another, common in one might be rare in another. The amount of feats you can call 'universally useless' is vanishingly small, and math used to show one is superiour to another in perfect laboratory conditions is not necesarily applicable to any given campaign
"I want to take the Technologist Feat!"
"Um.... We're playing Mummy's Mask...."
...
Not really. The math (ie: the *real* math behind the fact, which might or might not be fully realized for me) IS right. My math model would be wrong, which is different. ...
Incorrect. The set-up of the problem and system you are trying to model it with in order to derive a solution is most definitely a part of the mathematics. If the model is wrong, the mathematics is wrong.
...
However, that doesn't mean "which one is better is a matter of opinion". Even if I'm wrong because my model isn't accurate, there is an answer. One of those feats is mathemathically better. ...
It is quite definitely opinion if for no other reason than because the definition of 'better' is a matter of opinion.
I really don't see how you can posit the absolute existence and certitude of a mathematical proof of better when there is no agreement on the terms with which the proof would have to be derived....
What you mean about personal prefference is different. A player might find that a certain feat is more fun. That doesn't mean the statistical effect of the feat is any better or any worse, though.
It absolutely does. If something is not liked in a game, it will tend to be done less often. That is very definitely affecting the statistics.
If you tried to set up the solution system for just the 3 groups I have been in over recent years. Something as simple as a tabulation of results will show that teamwork feats are absolutely completely worthless for PC's even if completely free. There is not one single positive result from the use of teamwork feats.
Hmm...
That same tabulation could also show that teamwork feats are equivalent to the very best feat possible. Not one single instance of any other feat outperforming a teamwork feat.
But then I might point out that not one single teamwork feat has ever been taken by any PC in those 3 groups.
That personal preference which caused change in the occurrence completely overwhelms any other possible mathematics which may or may not apply to the situation.
The definition of 'better' (which varies from person to person) is absolutely integral to any possible determination.
The tiny bit of algebra performed (adding up zero's to get zero) is absolutely flawless. But the mathematics can not be said to be correct. There is no absolute correct answer.
I think for myself the fact they are pretty situational makes them far less appealing in most situations. To spend a feat slot, especially for feat-dependent builds/classes just doesn't seem as worth it as say, a feat that can be applied to nearly every combat or out of combat situation.
They are great for thematic elements, where you have a pair or group of characters pre-designed to use those abilities. Otherwise, I feel they are just too tricky to coordinate and not worth the sacrifice of another feat slot.
Actually, I've seen a few Teamwork Feat groups in PFS. They worked surprising well.
The true downside to Teamwork Feats is that they rely on everyone doing them together (many groups are walking sideshows as far as diversity goes), that many Teamwork Feats don't benefit all participants equally (such as the ones that give you a bonus in Melee when an ally with the same feat does something at range, wherein the ranged ally receives no bonus from said feat), or they require multiple characters filling similar party rolls (such as melee teamwork feats requiring multiple melee combatants) making it strenuous on a small group of adventurers.
That said, Teamwork Feats are AMAZING for NPCs (as they don't have to worry about long term plans, only the short term). Consider a small phalanx of soldiers with Shield Wall, a pair of mages using Allied Spellcaster, or a thieves guild using Feint Partner. Encounters that were less are now more with Teamwork Feats.
The problem for PC use is that in a party of 4, barring Leadership, that figher will be the lone shield bearer, that wizard will only have the cleric to ally with (who probably doesn't have that one spell he likes prepared), and the rogue can't expect anyone else to do his feinting for him.
Incorrect. The set-up of the problem and system you are trying to model it with in order to derive a solution is most definitely a part of the mathematics. If the model is wrong, the mathematics is wrong....
Not really. The math (ie: the *real* math behind the fact, which might or might not be fully realized for me) IS right. My math model would be wrong, which is different. ...
Wrong. "how much damage does outflank through a certain real life campaign" is a problem that has a mathemathical solution, provided by nature itself. It's a number. 23034 or 13203 or 67043 or whatever. Big Game Hunter in the same campaign will get another number, 23410 or 11134 or 55423 or whatever. If X > Y, then X is better, if not, it's worse. That's the REAL math behind the issue.
Then, we can try to produce a model that approach that real life math. We can be more precise, or less precise. Maybe we take in account crits, maybe not, maybe we model how many times you flank with an aproximation, maybe we make a survey, etc. The more precise we are, the better the result is. If we are imprecise, the result of our model will vary and we'll have more chances to be wrong.
But even if we are wrong with our model, there is a real life math behind the process, which has the real answer. And it's either X>Y or Y>X.
It is quite definitely opinion if for no other reason than because the definition of 'better' is a matter of opinion....
However, that doesn't mean "which one is better is a matter of opinion". Even if I'm wrong because my model isn't accurate, there is an answer. One of those feats is mathemathically better. ...
When comparing a feat that just increase your chancest to hit (like Outflank) with another feat that just increase your chance to hit (like Weapon Focus), "better" means "did more damage through a campaign". It's much harder to compare outflank with iron will or skill focus stealth, but that's not what we are discussing here.
There are plenty feats that are directly comparable. Deadly sneak just increase (or tries to) your damage. You can flatout compare it with any other feature that increase damage, and get the average damage you get from each. Deadly Sneak happen to be worse than most, because the average damage output from repeating 1s in sneak attack does not outweight the -2 to hit.
you need to determine the percentage of rounds a feat is effective to determine it's total bonus over a theoretical campaign.
this will be effected by enemy choice, so it would be best if we knew what enemies there were beforehand. Ranged enemies and casters will not be very flankable, while melee character will be more flankable. Since enemy encounters will be very flankable.
we need to know this kind of stuff if we're to analyze how useful something is across a campaign.
Point is, some people try to say 'such and so feat is worthless and shouldn't exist/isn't ever worth taking' because its situational. Situational in one campaign may be common in another, common in one might be rare in another. The amount of feats you can call 'universally useless' is vanishingly small, and math used to show one is superiour to another in perfect laboratory conditions is not necesarily applicable to any given campaign
I'm not talking about spherical cows or perfect laboratory conditions. I'm talking about playing a campaign, and in every instance you attack someone, count
a) did outflank work? What was the expected extra damage you got from it?b) would Big Game Hunter work? (or weapon focus, or whatever other feat you are comparing it to) How many damage did you get from it?
always talking about a certain groupm,in a crtain campaign, against certain enemies, in certain encounters. Not just a math lab.
The problem here is the vagaries of human memory, and cognitive bias, let us remember flashy things (such as a feat that let you do an extra attack when you roll two 20s in a row) and forget non-flashy things (such as +1 to hit). So it's easy to remember that time when you crit with outflank and your teammate got another crit, but you'll tend to forget the 213 situations where you couldn't flank, and Weapon Focus or Big Game Hunter would work better. So what you "feel" works better might not be what really works better.
you need to determine the percentage of rounds a feat is effective to determine it's total bonus over a theoretical campaign.
this will be effected by enemy choice, so it would be best if we knew what enemies there were beforehand. Ranged enemies and casters will not be very flankable, while melee character will be more flankable. Since enemy encounters will be very flankable.
we need to know this kind of stuff if we're to analyze how useful something is across a campaign.
Yes. And it might be hard, or impossible, to realize it without extensive work. BUT the point is: it's not true that it's a matter of opinion. It's a number, and it's either bigger than the other number, or lower
Except that there are different situations in which outflank works and does not work, and what situations come up during the campaign has a huge effect on how effective the feat is. In theory, yes, you could come up with a perfect equation that would tell you perfectly which is better given any given situation, the problem is much the same a having completely accurate weather prediction - you can't get enough information to perfectly set the conditions to make the equation accurate in the given situation Or perhaps better stated, SUITED to the given campaign.
I start to feel that I'm hitting a language wall, as english is my second language, so maybe I'm not managing to explain my point.
Again: yes. Sure. Outflank will come sometimes, sometimes not. Weapon focus would work only with some weapons, not others. Big game hunter with some enemies, not others. And so on. So yes, making a *model* to *predict* it is incredibly hard if you want to be perfectly accurate.
But I'm not debating that (which, btw, is also true for those that claim that teamwork feats work better than non teamwork feats). I'm arguing the point someone made, that which one is better is a matter of opinion. It's not. Who is prettier is a matter of opinion (nobody can be wrong, it depends on tastes), who is taller is a matter of height (so if someone opinion is that I'm taller than Lebron James, he's wrong). (combat) Feats have a measurable effect, and thus, one of them is going to do more for your character than the other. The prediction can be wrong. The real math behind the fact, is not.
For example, I tried to guess (heuristically) which would be better for my char, outflank or big game hunter. I took BGH, because my guess was that being large, with a large companion, against several large creatures, would make it harder to flank, while BGH will work often. I *might* be wrong with my guess. Even if I made a math model, I *might* be wrong with my model. But once the campaign plays, it's not a matter of opinion. My char will face X situations where I could flank, and Y situations where I face large creatures, so I'll do Y*p damage with BGH, and I'd had done X*q damage with outflank if I had it (where p is average damage per situation for BGH and q is average damage for outflank per situation). And either Y*p>X*q, or the other way around.
You might be able to definitively prove in retrospect which one would be definitively better ... But if you can only prove that in retrospect, then is that really of much practical use? And also ... 'Better' is a loaded word: better means different things to different people depending on their aims. It's not always, for example, 'dpr"
Let's suppose 100 people do it in retrospect. And 99 of them find, for example, outflank to outperform weapon focus. Would you consider it enough? I'd do. Certainly, even one single proof in restrospect is enough to argue against the sentence "it's a matter of opinion". Opinions can be wrong.
About better: sure, it's not possible to compare Outflank to Dodge, as dpr and defense are different goals. But what do you want "outflank" for, if it's not for dpr? Wouldn't you want "weapon focus" for the same things? You can't compare outflank with skill focus stealth, or great fortitude or craft woundreous items, but you can compare it with weapon focus or big game hunter easily.
Fine then.
Time to stop the thread hijack, I guess.
So in order to go back to the original topic:
why do you think teamwork feats are so unpopular?
Gustavo, your English is far better than your average native, and your points are crystal clear. It's not a language barrier. People just want to defend the rightness of their opinions to the death, and that means denying any possibility of objectivity.
There's definitely a right answer in every campaign. Just because you don't know it ahead of time doesn't make it subjective. That said, it will be much more difficult to prove anything on the expected DPR of outflank vs weapon focus under non-specific normal conditions than it is to prove that outflank is either better, worse, or equal to weapon focus under any specific set of known conditions.
But even if we are wrong with our model, there is a real life math behind the process, which has the real answer. And it's either X>Y or Y>X.
Interesting that you don't allow for the possibility that X=Y.
*drops bear poking stick and runs away*
- Torger
But even if we are wrong with our model, there is a real life math behind the process, which has the real answer. And it's either X>Y or Y>X.Interesting that you don't allow for the possibility that X=Y.
*drops bear poking stick and runs away*
- Torger
Or the possibility that the set isn't totally ordered (which is perfectly acceptable in mathematical systems).
If your question is "which will result in more damage" I agree that we can probably lay down some math to figure it out with some assumptions about what kind of encounters you'll be facing and sort it out from there.
But not all damage is created equal, so that's probably not a good metric for what is "best" (for example, a small amount of damage that disrupts a high level spell on a readied action is likely better than a large amount of damage on the summoned monster whose duration is about to run out or the spellcaster that's out of good spells). We can assign multipliers for situations like that, but now we're getting into subjective assignments.
For example, which is better? Killing the CR 15 Ancient dragon but having half the party killed or killing the CR 13 Very Old dragon without any casualties? I suspect different groups (and stories) would say different things.
So you believe that when 3 other players roll under ten then the 4th player is better off rolling than just taking 10?My simulation assumed 1 player takes 10 if it would beat all the other rolls.
in which case your model doesn't take care of the circumstance when 3 people roll and end up with a 17, the last guy isn't going to take 10 because he may end up with 18-20.
*sigh*
OK. All but one of the players roll. If ALL of their rolls are less than 10 then the last player takes 10. Under ANY other circumstances, the last player rolls.
So yes, if the highest roll between all other players was seventeen, then the last player would roll. The last player would only take ten if the highest roll amongst all other players was less than ten.
People just want to defend the rightness of their opinions to the death, and that means denying any possibility of objectivity.
I think it's pretty much this. People (including me) want their right to be wrong.
Most people want to be able to say that their daddy is stronger than the other guy's daddy. So nobody likes when the other guys says "my daddy bench press record is 215lb. What about your daddy's?"
Exactly. The answer may exist but if it is close to unknowable is it relevant?
I don't think it's so close to unknowable as many people believe. I do think, however, that most people doesn't want to know the answer, if the answer contradicts their previous beliefs.
But that's a pet peeve of myself, so I guess I've derailed the thread enough.
Fine then.
Time to stop the thread hijack, I guess.So in order to go back to the original topic:
why do you think teamwork feats are so unpopular?
Weak, highly situational, and require two players to use a feat slot unless you can cheat that requirement. Often just another fiddly little bonus that you have to constantly check to see if it's on.
Yes. And it might be hard, or impossible, to realize it without extensive work. BUT the point is: it's not true that it's a matter of opinion. It's a number, and it's either bigger than the other number, or loweryou need to determine the percentage of rounds a feat is effective to determine it's total bonus over a theoretical campaign.
this will be effected by enemy choice, so it would be best if we knew what enemies there were beforehand. Ranged enemies and casters will not be very flankable, while melee character will be more flankable. Since enemy encounters will be very flankable.
we need to know this kind of stuff if we're to analyze how useful something is across a campaign.
just pointing out how stupid futile all this is.
I came into this thread looking for any good options for a spellcaster with a Valet familiar. What I'm realizing is that mathematically it seems most teamwork feats are a trap.
Since you're your own ally, would a wizard and their Valet familiar gain +2 on all saves from Shake it Off, or is it still just +1?
I came into this thread looking for any good options for a spellcaster with a Valet familiar. What I'm realizing is that mathematically it seems most teamwork feats are a trap.
Eh. Math, at least how it often gets used/how I often see it used on forums and indeed in many places on the Internet, is a handful of glitter used to distract from the actual point -- that being "I don't like this thing, so MATH!"
Math can be used to prove and disprove all sorts of things, and I'm sure with a brief Google search you can find that out for yourself. You don't have to pad your answer of yes or no with MATH! to somehow solidify what you are saying. A simple "I like it because I like it" or "I hate them with the fire of a thousand burning suns" is more than enough.
Unless you are trying to win, that is. :)
And yes, you can use math to prove things. I don't deny this. I deny that every instance of MATH! being trotted out into threads is doing more than adding word count to what is likely a simple opinion.
You might be able to definitively prove in retrospect which one would be definitively better ... But if you can only prove that in retrospect, then is that really of much practical use?
Abso-bleeding-lutely. The entire insurance industry, for example, operates by predicting the future using what we've known about the past. Young male drivers pay more in auto insurance premiums than middle-aged female drivers because the insurance companies believe that young male drivers get in more accidents.
Smokers pay more in health insurance because the insurance companies believe they'll run up bigger medical bills than non-smokers. And they pay more in life insurance premiums because the companies believe they will die sooner than non-smokers.
Sure, they can only "prove that in retrospect." No one knows how many smokers will die in 2017 and at what ages. But when you're setting a price for insurance today, in 2015, you need to have a price today that covers what you expect.
And I can't think of anything of more practical use for predicting the answer to a question in the future than the answer to the same question posed (and answered) definitively in the past.
I've never seen a campaign where web bolt was a more effective spell for long-term use than fireball. If someone asked me whether fireball was a better choice for the Preferred Spell feat, I'd say "yes" in a heartbeat. If you're suggesting to me that I can't say that with confidence,.... well, you're simply mistaken.
And yes, you can use math to prove things. I don't deny this. I deny that every instance of MATH! being trotted out into threads is doing more than adding word count to what is likely a simple opinion.
It's not just about math, it's about realizing that reality and perception are two different things. For example, there are twice as many english words that have a K in the 3rd letter than words that start by k, but most people would never realize that, because the brain has easier to remember words that start by k than words that have a K in the third letter. Your son has more chances to die if he goes to a house with a swimming pool than if he goes to a house with a collection of guns.
I haven't done, purposefully, any math model or math calculation in this thread, to avoid making it a "math contest" made to "increase the word count". I was talking more about the approach, than the example itself. I'm pretty sure, though, that even in the hyppothetical situation where I could show a perfect math model, or even better, a collection of real empirical data taken from real life adventure path painfully parsed into a database, people wouldn't want to hear it. Because people want to believe their father is the strongest, and people don't want to discover that the feat they like is actually not that good as they think.
And yes, you can use math to prove things. I don't deny this. I deny that every instance of MATH! being trotted out into threads is doing more than adding word count to what is likely a simple opinion.It's not just about math, it's about realizing that reality and perception are two different things. For example, there are twice as many english words that have a K in the 3rd letter than words that start by k, but most people would never realize that, because the brain has easier to remember words that start by k than words that have a K in the third letter. Your son has more chances to die if he goes to a house with a swimming pool than if he goes to a house with a collection of guns.
I haven't done, purposefully, any math model or math calculation in this thread, to avoid making it a "math contest" made to "increase the word count". I was talking more about the approach, than the example itself. I'm pretty sure, though, that even in the hyppothetical situation where I could show a perfect math model, or even better, a collection of real empirical data taken from real life adventure path painfully parsed into a database, people wouldn't want to hear it. Because people want to believe their father is the strongest, and people don't want to discover that the feat they like is actually not that good as they think.
It's possible. Or the folks on boards like these, having been through lots of "your father is stronger" or more properly "Batman can beat ANYONE and here's how" threads tend to dismiss or play down whatever proofs are thrown out.
In the end, even if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a great sword wielding fighter trumps anything else in melee (just to throw a random example out), yes, there are some that do not care. It could be about the design of the PC in their head, or success or failure with that sort of thing before, or a like of two weapon designs, or archers, or whatever else.
To those people, the math absolutely doesn't matter. Your numbers are nice, but they don't amount to much more than a long post that doesn't apply to them. For that matter, there are people that have had success -- despite the math -- with team work feats. It doesn't matter that it only functions .02% of the time on alternate Sundays in a full moon while fighting halflings; it is something that they have found that works for them.
You see this all the time with sports: on paper, Bob the Quarterback or Jim the Forward should make their pass or hit their shot X percent of the time and whatever team should always win against this other team. But .. it doesn't work like that. Things change, constantly, during the game, before the game, with variables that the math, as lovely as it is, doesn't take into account.
This happens with RPGs too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To those people, the math absolutely doesn't matter
True, for them it doesn't matter. For them, there are also more english words that start by K than English words with a K in the third letter. Not that reality of English vocabulary would change because they believe that, though.
You see this all the time with sports: on paper, Bob the Quarterback or Jim the Forward should make their pass or hit their shot X percent of the time
That's a pretty good example
and whatever team should always win against this other team
That's not a good example. And anyone who thinks that, doesn't understand the concept of math, statistics, or averages.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those people, the math absolutely doesn't matterTrue, for them it doesn't matter. For them, there are also more english words that start by K than English words with a K in the third letter. Not that reality of English vocabulary would change because they believe that, though.
You see this all the time with sports: on paper, Bob the Quarterback or Jim the Forward should make their pass or hit their shot X percent of the timeThat's a pretty good example
and whatever team should always win against this other teamThat's not a good example. And anyone who thinks that, doesn't understand the concept of math, statistics, or averages.
There are tons of people who understand, they still don't care. My wife has her degree in Mathematics and could care less whether the weapon she picks has a great average damage or if her class is statistically better than someone else's.
Let's be honest: we debate the finer points of stats for RPGs because it is easier than having a discussion about how to RP. You can plot out more scenarios, and show that this class/spell/weapon/feat is better in some way than another. It gives us something to do between actually playing.
That is what math is good for, and it IS good for that. But it doesn't take people's feelings into account, people's desires and dreams for their characters. Which is why you'll get discussions like this, where a side can show that a feat is categorically a bad idea, and another side will up and down swear that it worked for them.
The game is more than math, and more than just roleplay. It's a weird land where all sorts of things combine into a stew that is hard to describe but keeps you coming back for more.
Let's be honest: we debate the finer points of stats for RPGs because it is easier than having a discussion about how to RP. You can plot out more scenarios, and show that this class/spell/weapon/feat is better in some way than another. It gives us something to do between actually playing.That is what math is good for, and it IS good for that.
Those are really good points
But it doesn't take people's feelings into account, people's desires and dreams for their characters. Which is why you'll get discussions like this, where a side can show that a feat is categorically a bad idea, and another side will up and down swear that it worked for them.
I acknoweldged that part before, when I talked about the imposibility of determining which feat is more fun (which I probably should had stressed more, as fun is like, you know, kind of important in a game). I guess my pet peeve is that people, instead of saying "you know what? Feats that have a huge effect sparingly are more memorable, and thus more fun that feats that give a small flat bonus, and that's why I like Butterfly sting or Paired opportunists or outflank (with the crit thing) more than weapon specialization or greater weapon focus", they say "the feats works better on average". The first sentence is undeniable right, as their own fun is defined by their tastes (and it's pretty obvious that those are more memorable than boringly adding +1 to hit and damage or whatever). The second one is defined by math, and can be right, or can be wrong.
It's not just about math, it's about realizing that reality and perception are two different things. For example, there are twice as many english words that have a K in the 3rd letter than words that start by k, but most people would never realize that, because the brain has easier to remember words that start by k than words that have a K in the third letter. Your son has more chances to die if he goes to a house with a swimming pool than if he goes to a house with a collection of guns.
I haven't done, purposefully, any math model or math calculation in this thread, to avoid making it a "math contest" made to "increase the word count". I was talking more about the approach, than the example itself. I'm pretty sure, though, that even in the hyppothetical situation where I could show a perfect math model, or even better, a collection of real empirical data taken from real life adventure path painfully parsed into a database, people wouldn't want to hear it. Because people want to believe their father is the strongest, and people don't want to discover that the feat they like is actually not that good as they think.
You see, this is what is most troubling about your position. You have not modelled anything and you have not proven anything yet you are convinced of your position based on your feelings, your perceptions and your preferences. This at the same time as you declare others ignorant, foolish and/or obstinate for making decisions based on their feelings, their perceptions and their preferences. Such arrogance.
Before anyone says gustavo has proven that BGH is superior to Outflank...well, sure, when you're playing Giantslayer it's a safe bet that BGH will pay off way better than Outflank but what if the same comparison was made for Council of Thieves instead? The ratio of large opponents to medium or small humanoids is radically different in that AP. There are plenty of other AP's to consider and there's almost no way gustavo can account for anyone's homebrew experience.
I'm not suggesting we go through every AP to have a definitive Outflank vs. BGH answer. That would be a waste of time and is not my point at all. I just think it'd be awfully nice if gustavo would stop suggesting that the rest of us are incapable of judging, on a case by case basis using all the tools at our disposal including mathematics, the value of a feat compared to another while he is somehow able to do so with complete objectivity.
I came into this thread looking for any good options for a spellcaster with a Valet familiar. What I'm realizing is that mathematically it seems most teamwork feats are a trap.
I am going to be doing this with lookout, escape route, allied spellcaster, and/or shake it off. I am partnering with a hunter that will be taking the same for him and his animal companion bodyguard.
It's not just about math, it's about realizing that reality and perception are two different things. For example, there are twice as many english words that have a K in the 3rd letter than words that start by k, but most people would never realize that, because the brain has easier to remember words that start by k than words that have a K in the third letter. Your son has more chances to die if he goes to a house with a swimming pool than if he goes to a house with a collection of guns.
I haven't done, purposefully, any math model or math calculation in this thread, to avoid making it a "math contest" made to "increase the word count". I was talking more about the approach, than the example itself. I'm pretty sure, though, that even in the hyppothetical situation where I could show a perfect math model, or even better, a collection of real empirical data taken from real life adventure path painfully parsed into a database, people wouldn't want to hear it. Because people want to believe their father is the strongest, and people don't want to discover that the feat they like is actually not that good as they think.
You see, this is what is most troubling about your position. You have not modelled anything and you have not proven anything yet you are convinced of your position based on your feelings, your perceptions and your preferences. This at the same time as you declare others ignorant, foolish and/or obstinate for making decisions based on their feelings, their perceptions and their preferences. Such arrogance.
Before anyone says gustavo has proven that BGH is superior to Outflank...well, sure, when you're playing Giantslayer it's a safe bet that BGH will pay off way better than Outflank but what if the same comparison was made for Council of Thieves instead? The ratio of large opponents to medium or small humanoids is radically different in that AP. There are plenty of other AP's to consider and there's almost no way gustavo can account for...
I feel like you missed the point entirely. the guy is saying that there is an objectively correct answer, not that he had that answer to give.
[
You see, this is what is most troubling about your position. You have not modelled anything and you have not proven anything yet you are convinced of your position based on your feelings, your perceptions and your preferences. This at the same time as you declare others ignorant, foolish and/or obstinate for making decisions based on their feelings, their perceptions and their preferences. Such arrogance.
No, I haven't done that. I've even explicitly said that none of both possitions hace proved that their option is mathemathically superior, and that I did heuristics for my decision as well, and that I might be wrong as well.
Here:
Not really. The math (ie: the *real* math behind the fact, which might or might not be fully realized for me) IS right. My math model would be wrong, which is different.
That doesn't change the fact that one of both opinions IS objetivelly wrong when we talk about average mathemathical effect on a given campaign. It is not a matter of opinion, becsuse it is not something subjetive, like a top model's beauty. It's something objetive, like a top model's weight. So either I'm wrong, or the other guy is.
Now when your face the problem of selecting a feat you can care about the average efficiency, or your can choose not care, and took whatever feat your like more. It could be even totally unrelated or non combat.
If you care, though, the more variables your take in account, the more accurate your assestment is, and the higher chance your are right. Anecdotal evidence is not a good tool fir that. But with whatever number of variables you study, and whatever decision your take, that decision is going to be either correct, or wrong. The post I was quoting when I started muy rant said the oppositte: that there's no wrong answer. There's no wrong answer to "what feat your hace more fun with", BUT there are wrong answers to "what feat will give you a better average efficiency through a given campaign"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, since we can't know all of that, discussing how perfect the math can be is roughly as useful to the topic at hand to discussing how blue the sky is. Is it blue? Yes it is. Does that matter one whit to teamwork feats? No it does not.
Color gradients are a thing.
The precise locations of colors on the spectrum is something that we can measure to kind of absurd degrees of accuracy.
Colors are typically described and processed by computers as a number with 6 digits.
If you type in any number with 6 digits, that will be a specific color.
I bring this up because the way we know all these things about color is because of.... math.
If we'd decided to take your approach and just say "Is it blue? Yes it is" we'd all be still using two-tone monitors.
Math is important. It helps us create models through which we can measure things.
Like, say, the performance projections and statistical variance of various feats in a roleplaying game.
You can't play the game without math. You can't even really discuss the game without math.
In this case, the math is how we know that the vast majority of teamwork feats are not worth using.
In this case, the math is how we know that the vast majority of teamwork feats are not worth using.
Some math models are easier. For example, it is trivial to show that, past a certain lvl of flat damage modifiers, Falcata is better than Great Sword.
Some other models are harder to realize. To know the average damage from outflank, you need to know the average chance to flank with the specific teammate that also has the feat, the average chance to crit, and how much matters that extra attack matters, if it matters.Bit that's like the math behind an object in free fall vs the math behind quantum phisics. Bit a math harder to understand doesn't change the fact that there is a math, objective answer
We can determine that teamwork feats aren't worth using with some pretty basic and easily-accessible math, making a few assumptions involving things like the probability of securing a flanking position each round. Sure, we can do that, and we should do that, and it's awesome.
That's what we should do, and if the margin of error made in the assumptions is small, answer is accurate enough.
But when answer isn't easy, it doesnt make the answer subjetive.
For example:
The chance to hit a free throw in basketball is pretty easy to know. And we know James Harden is much better than Dwight Howard, so if there is a technical foul, we give it to Harden.
The chance to hit a certain 3p shot is much harder to know. There are factors as distance, position, how far is the defender, how good is the defender, player accuracy, time remaining in the clock, accuracy of the shooter, fatigue and many others
So we can't be really sure about the real % of a 3p shoot from the top of the arc, coming off bounce, made by Harden, with Iguodala at 2', compared to a corner 3 shoot by Howard, without a defender close. But just because we are unsure of the real answer, that doesn't mean the answer is "it's subjetive". There IS an answer that is right. The models we use can be more ir less accurate, depending on how much variables we take, but the answer is not "it doesn't matter who shoots".
...
Math is important. It helps us create models through which we can measure things.Like, say, the performance projections and statistical variance of various feats in a roleplaying game.
You can't play the game without math. You can't even really discuss the game without math. ...
I mostly agree with you, as far as that goes.
...
In this case, the math is how we know that the vast majority of teamwork feats are not worth using.
No. Your vastly simplified model may show that teamwork feats are not not worth using for your personal definition of 'better' (which does not agree with everyone else), based on the assumption you made (which are not the same assumptions everyone else might make), and the given starting condition you used (which are not necessarily the same for everyone else).
Now if you can actually give your definition of 'better', the assumptions you made, and the starting conditions you used, and get everyone to agree with all those...
Well then I would agree with you. But I don't think that is ever going to happen.
.
.
Let's go back to that "How blue is the sky question?"
Yes, Science let's me measure the intensity across the spectrum of wave lengths.
Math lets me express the continuum in terms which will give a sufficiently educated person a remarkable detailed understanding of the conditions present.
Technical man can say the sky is letting through to my equipment an average of X much energy made up of electromagnetic waves in the range defined as 'blue' by Y scientific publication.
However, that does not give a precise answer to the question.
Jim can look at several different 'blue' skies and see no difference.
Jay may look at one and due to the fact that his eye or mind reacts more to the lower end of the spectrum may decide that 'this' one is more blue.
John may look at another and decide that it is more blue because his eye or brain is reacting to the average intensity across all the range of what we classify as 'blue.'
Joe might look up and say "you're all three full of crap, there isn't hardly any blue, because he is seeing that it is washed out by that great big super bright yellow orb."
Then you get to the guys disagree on where it stops being blue and starts being green or purple.
Etc...
Guess what? Every one of those guys is correct. But only for their own set of definitions, assumption, and starting conditions. And you will probably find it nearly impossible to get them to all agree on 1 set.
The only guy that is wrong is the scientist who says there is a clear objectively provable answer to 'How blue is the sky?"
.
.
On the topic of teamwork feats:
Definition of better - To some people a thing that promotes the players make plans and cooperating with each other is very good. Some others will see that same property as bad because pushing me to one behavior is apparently taking away from my freedom to do anything I want. That will fit into their definition of better.
There are players for whom hitting is much more important than average damage. They feel like they are not contributing if they missed. So to them a reduction in miss chance is more desirable than an increase in average damage. There are other players that don't care about how often they hit or even what there average damage is. They are only concerned with how big that damage total is when they do hit. That will fit into their definition of better.
Assumptions- Some people are making the very clear assumption that some condition 'like flanking' is not practically achievable. Others are making the assumption that it achievable if an effort is made to do so. Others are making the assumption that bonuses to hit are not necessary since melee characters are built to hit most of the time. Others are making the assumption that every single bonus to hit is worth while. Some are making the assumption that PC's are always spread out as much as possible. Others that they will stay together for mutual protection.
Some are making the assumption that no one will cooperate to take teamwork feats or use them correctly in the game. Others the exact opposite.
Starting conditions - For some people, large groups of PC's working together as a well oiled machine with detailed plans and jointly understood tactics is very common. For others, groups are small with each person doing their own thing regardless of what will help or is most effective. Some have a history of brutal GM's with whom nearly every combat is a hard fought struggle to survive. Some have experienced GM's where the majority of campaign it not really all that challenging unless the PC's do something stupid.
I believe you can find evidence of every one of those definitions, assumptions, and starting conditions in just this thread. Plus others that I didn't mention.
Edit: Removed some needlessly antagonistic phrasing.