15

« **on:** January 22, 2014, 11:22:15 PM »
I don't think that +x Piercing can be better than +X dice, But I believe that the difference between the two might not be as profound as the model describes. So much so that the difference is insignificant.

The Statistic model is correct, but for one small snafu. It does not take into account the HP of the targets or rather the lack there of. The model assumes that all damage is used at 100% efficiency. Once we think about it we know that this is not true. Piercing increases the efficiency of the dice on armored tagerts by increasing the amount of damage the target will suffer on the bottom end, but does not increase the chances of inflicting in excess of the creatures HP.

I will use the 4d6 +2 P(A) and 6d6(B) set against a 2 Armor 8 HP creature in explaining the hypothisis.

The first strike from A will always be at 100% efficiency. However, B's can be as low as 67%. It is rare though to roll all Crits. On the second strike, if it is not killed by the first, B has a greater chance of producing significant damage that is wasted because of the low amount of HP. If we continue this out for a whole game would the difference be even quantifiable.

My Gut tells me that this should affect the model in some way and the problem might even need to be approached from a different angle. Something along the lines of The Probability for 1, 2, 3.... Strikes to kill a set list of creatures with varying stats. As I said I don't think it is possible for piercing to be better, but then again there might be some "magical" combination of dice, piercing, armor, and HP that does.

There almost always is Overkill Damage, but could some amount Piercing mitigate it to make a lower amount of attack dice just as good as adding the same amount of attack dice?

Hedge