dark cauliflower wrote:that was a great post.
I am somewhat skeptical that a 3rd level warrior is going to last that long against 10 men at arms, even with the cool stuff mixed in. He gets 1 attack a round and may have something like 18 hp. He'd need 10 rounds to knock those guys out and they might need like 6 hits to take him down in that time.
is he mince meat or a hero?
Math paints one picture, but I think actually rolling out numerous scenarios with the Warrior having been generated genuinely (rather than assuming some kind of "average warrior") and being equipped as you would expect to see a 3rd level character equipped.
Using math though... let's see what that gets us:
Mathematically average 3rd level Warrior - 19 AC, 22 HP, 1d20+d5 attack for (prior d5 roll)+d8 damage, Saves of R/F/W +1/+2/+1, +3 initiative
Mathematically average man-at-arms - 14 AC, 4 HP, 1d20+1 attack for 16 damage, Saves of +1, +0 initiative
Breakdown:
Initiative: The warrior gets 13, the men-at-arms get 10
Round 1: Warrior attacks, misses (result 13 vs. AC 14), Men-at-arms attack and all miss (result 12 vs. AC 19).
Round 2: Exact replication of round 1.
...
Round 4,398: Exact replication of round 1.
Why? because statistical probability is in no way a guarantee of what will happen, and how many times you have rolled 1d20+1 doesn't even become a part of the calculation how likely the result is to be 19 or higher.
Alternate breakdown, actually rolling attack & damage:
Initiative: Warrior 14, men-at-arms 5
Round 1: Warrior attacks, hits for 4 damage killing a man-at-arms. 9 men-at-arms attack 1 critical for 9 damage, 8 misses.
Round 2: Warrior attacks, hits for 11 damage, killing a man-at-arms and improving AC by 1, 8 men-at-arms attack and all miss.
Round 3: Warrior attacks, misses. 8 men-at-arms attack, 1 hits for 2 damage
Round 4: Warrior attacks, hits for 11 damage, killing a man-at arms and improving AC by 1, 7 men-at-arms attack and all miss.
Round 5: Warrior attacks, critical (8 on table IV) deals 11 damage killing a man-at-arms and allows a second attack which misses, 6 men-at-arms attack and all miss.
Round 6: Warrior attacks, critical (5 on table IV) deals 5 damage killing a man-at-arms and shattering his weapon, 5 men-at-arms attack, 1 fumbles and damages his weapon, the rest miss.
Round 7-9: an incredible miss-fest.
Round 10: Warrior criticals (3 on table IV) for 18 damage and a follow-up attack on the prone corpse of a man-at-arms (which happens to hit for 9 damage). 4 men-at-arms attack, 1 fumbles and gets his weapon entangled in his armor.
Round 11: Warrior attacks, hits for 5 killing a man-at-arms (not the one made useless by his fumble). 2 men-at-arms attack and miss.
Round 12: Warrior attacks, hits for 9 and gets +1 AC. 2 men-at-arms attack, 1 hits for 3 damage
Round 13: Everybody misses.
Round 14: Warrior kills man-at-arms with 12 damage, gets +1 AC. Single man-at-arms attacks and misses.
Round 15: Everybody misses.
Round 16: A 17 damage critical (that would have driven the foe back and force him to forgo his next attack) from the warrior ends the battle.
Warrior wins, ending the fight with 8 HP left.
Alternate version of the above where I don't ignore morale rules:
Round 6: Warrior attacks, shatters the weapon of a man-at-arms and the blow carries through to kill the man - the remaining 5 men-at-arms flee for their lives.
Warrior wins, ends fight with only 11 of 22 HP missing.
warrior HP 8
Of course, you should roll out similar scenarios as well to really solidify your opinion on the matter - which no amount of math can actually give you a good impression of.