when your statement was indeed wrong because Quicken Spell-Like Ability isn't actually metamagic.The rules sure use the word metamagic a lot for something you call "not actually metamagic":
Some monster feats allow a creature to apply metamagic feat-like effects to its spell-like abilities. You can select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 the monster's caster level (round down) – 1 or 2, depending on the ability.
Table 3–1: Metamagic Spell-Like Abilities summarizes these feats and what spell-like abilities they can affect by caster level.I think if the rules call it like that, I should be able to do so too.
Absolutely no one agrees with your "changing how the hex works doesn't affect it" argumentation.How does agreement matter when you're not wrong?
These are 2 totally contradictory statements.
The second is basically correct, agreement does not make something correct. You look at the rules and see what you're allowed to do and that's what's correct, not what people think.
The first completely ignores that and just says "I think it should be this way because reasons" (actually you didn't even give reasons). For all your posturing about what is and isn't "technically allowed" you seem to ignore that when it suits you.
You haven't convinced anyone, and you seem to be wilfully ignoring me. Since you don't have anything compelling to say on the subject I'm just going to ignore you from here out as well.
Thanks Derklord for the FAQ. I'm surprised it's not on the PFSRD or Archives by now.
Just to clarify, Protective luck gives an average of -3.325 to every attack roll, which is slightly less powerful than Evil Eye at level 8+. It does all-but-negate crits, and approximately doubles the chance of a Natural 1 (which does make it more powerful than Evil Eye), but the average numeric modifier for most attacks isn't that big a deal.
Do you have a source for that? I believe you, but I like having a reference for this sort of thing. My understanding was it was worth somewhere between a -4 to -5.
Stuff that belongs in the Rules Forum and not the Advice Forum
As your interpretation of rules text appears to be the only contention you have with this subject(As you haven't made any kind of statement such as "This would be too strong" or "it's fine", I would recommend starting a new thread in the Rules forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify, Protective luck gives an average of -3.325 to every attack roll, which is slightly less powerful than Evil Eye at level 8+. It does all-but-negate crits, and approximately doubles the chance of a Natural 1 (which does make it more powerful than Evil Eye), but the average numeric modifier for most attacks isn't that big a deal.Do you have a source for that? I believe you, but I like having a reference for this sort of thing. My understanding was it was worth somewhere between a -4 to -5.
A source? No. I did the Math myself.
If you take a look at THIS PICTURE you can see all the posibilities for all the different rolls.
1 chance of rolling a 1
3 chances of rolling a 2
5 chances of rolling a 3
7 chances of rolling a 4
9 chances of rolling a 5
11 chances of rolling a 6.
There are 6×6 = 36 possible rolls (and the numbers on the left above add to 36, so that helps us check it).
Now to get the mean (average) you add all the options together and divide by the number of options, so:
(1×1 + 3×2 + 5×3 + 7×4 + 9×5 + 11×6) ÷ 36 = 4.47222...
So the average when rolling 2d6 pick the highest is ~4.5, it gives ~+1 to the roll on average.
Now the pattern there is that the chance of rolling x is 2x-1. This continues forever, so we can make these calculations with bigger dice. If we do the same thing with 2d20 pick the highest:
1×1 + 3×2 + 5×3 ... + 35×18 + 37×19 + 39 × 20 = 5,530
÷ (20×20=400) = 13.825
The average number on 1d20 is 10.5 so the difference when rolling twice is 13.825 - 10.5 = 3.325.
This will work the same when rolling twice and picking the lowest number, but will end up 3.325 lower than the average (7.175) instead of higher (I would have done that for the demonstration but I couldn't find a picture to help illustrate it).
For the extreme numbers you have:
- 1/400 (0.25%) chance of rolling a Nat-20
- 39/400 (9.75%) chance or rolling a Nat-1
against someone affected by Protective Luck.
The chance is usually 5% for everything, so you've almost doubled your chances of getting a Nat-1, and all-but-eliminated the chance to threaten a crit (and the confirmation roll will also have disadvantage).
If you manage to get Fortune (or something similar) the chance of rolling a 15+ with your Keen Scimitar (or whatever) goes from 30% to ~65% (and your confirmation roll has advantage).
You can get a more complex answer HERE (just the first one I found), but hopefully this one is simple enough for everyone to easily follow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
F$%+ing math.
23 × 3 = ??
A source? No. I did the Math myself.
...
If you manage to get Fortune (or something similar) the chance of rolling a 15+ with your Keen Scimitar (or whatever) goes from 30% to
~65%51% (and your confirmation roll has advantage)....
Sorry for the thread necro.
I don't know where 65% came from, it should be 51%.
This came up again in THIS THREAD and after nodding to myself that someone else understood I suddenly realised I'd given all of you the wrong number.
It just goes to show you should always get someone to check your working =P