MonsterEnvy
Legend
If that's your rebuttal then you don't understand the argument.
I for sure don't I have no idea what point the opening post is trying to make.
If that's your rebuttal then you don't understand the argument.
I for sure don't I have no idea what point the opening post is trying to make.
If that's your rebuttal then you don't understand the argument.
"If so then mentioning overkill in isolation without this mitigating factor definitely is a fallacy, arguing that one option is superior than another based on 1 factor that is only part of the picture."Right, the argument wasn't that overkill damage doesn't exist and can't allow a multi attack character to sometimes kill an enemy faster than a single attack character of equivalent DPR.
The argument I am making is that there are also mechanisms in place that allow for the single attack character to kill an enemy a round faster and apply his next rounds damage to a new enemy while the two attack character is still killing the first enemy. At this point in time no one can say with any evidence that what they refer to as overkill is more important than the factor I've brought to light. Does the factor I'm talking about completely offset overkill? Is it more important than overkill? If so then mentioning overkill in isolation without this mitigating factor definitely is a fallacy, arguing that one option is superior than another based on 1 factor that is only part of the picture.
That said, more work needs done to work out the precise details. I also called that out in my first post.
Actually I've just realized the way to account for it. He requires 2 hits to kill a 5 hp enemy. That means he needs 10 attacks to hit in total. I can easily calculate that for him. The single attack PC needs 5 attacks to hit in total. Any objections to this method?
Sure. I'm sure you realize how complex the actual calculation will be. So arguing that I should have started there instead of building up to it seems more like a way to discount the work that has been done that is going to hopefully build up to that.
My initial working theory is that in actual play such threshholds will be encountered 50-50. This will occur because variable damage hits will tend to ultimately drop monsters hp to such a range that the value will be randomly distributed between the 2 thresholds.
Of course that brings up the more important and much more complicated scenario of variable damage which I don't plan to attempt to tackle till the end.
"If so then mentioning overkill in isolation without this mitigating factor definitely is a fallacy, arguing that one option is superior than another based on 1 factor that is only part of the picture."
Actually, it's the " if so" part that beggars the use here of the term fallacy.
It's not "normal usage" to assign the term fallacy to an issue just because it **might not be true* or in some cases isnt.
I mean, if you take you at your expressed statement and apply it to the statements about DPR znd thenkmpactbof the +5/-10 feats etc thrn ine vould judt as (in )accurately call those fallacy if they did not take into account overkill, because it is a factor (one among many) they either left out or did not convludivrly show to be not significant.
So, it seems like the takeaway here is that the actual assessment of in- game effective damage done DPRbis more complex than lost of these models represents snd uou seem to feel it's fine to call some of the conclusions models that leave stuff out "fallacious."
Thsts cool for me cuz the typical white room spreasheet forum warrior DPR fu always seemed to me to just ignore too many actual play factors to be meaningful anyway.
Glad to see we may not be as far apart as I had suspected.
You're right. I was looking at it as a variation of Lancaster's Law, but you've set the situation up as a worst case comparison for PC2. PC2 has to perform just as much overkill as PC1 to drop a enemy, but suffers from reduced chance to inflict that whole amount in a single round.
Change your scenario by dropping the enemy's hp total to 4 and you'll see a large swing since that's the best case for PC2 (actually anything from 1-4 is best case because PC1 and PC2 both drop an enemy in a single hit at that point) or raise the enemy's hp to 9 so PC1 takes 2 hits to kill and PC2 takes 3.
Then there's no issue. I was pointing out that a lone PC whittling down a block of hp was implausible (mainly because of the lone PC) - Maybe I should have said an oversimplification?
Possibly, due to positioning or trying to occupy foes in melee so they don't focus on one PC - not that either is handled well by 5e in TotM mode.
Focus fire is just so effective under D&D style hp rules, though...
Either way a given PC dropping a given monster by inflicting exactly its remaining hp is going to be a pretty random event.
For everyone but you the block rules apparently prevent the blocked user from responding to a thread that the person blocking them has started. If you want to be special and refuse to abide by the apparent spirit of the block rules that's on you. I can't stop you and the mods don't appear interested in doing so either. But I will continue to call you out on it.
Actually my understanding is that's not the spirit of the block rule and Morrus has spoken about that in the past. It's a flaw, not a feature, that it has the unintended consequence of blocking entire threads when it's only supposed to block a single user. He intends to update the software soon and it will hopefully fix that flaw. If you insist that someone you block can't post in threads you start because you think you have some ownership rights over the thread, you're in the wrong - nobody owns threads here (except the owner of this message board). Please stop harassing me about that issue.
I am happy to respect your wish to not respond to you. However, you might want to stop responding to me if that's the case. Maybe start with this message.