I don't think you quite get what the concept is. If you prevent 10 HP initially on round 1, that's not going to do anything and the PC will get his next turn. A few rounds down the track after damage is inflicted, preventing 10 damage will give them their next turn. While not doing so will prevent them from getting that turn in the first place. Also the point that you've missed here is that the 10 HP prevented initially was on ANY attack on any PC. The tactical situation is irrelevant, the power is used just to boost DPR and so any consideration like that isn't important. Effectively I see these powers being used just to continue one PCs turn during another creatures turn.There is no mathematical difference between saving the first 10 hp and the last 10 hp. For any given number of attacks and given number of hit points, doing either would "prevent them going unconscious".
In order to make my point clear we'll just assume a party of a Ranger (quite frankly, Rangers are the main culprits here), 4 other characters and 5 monsters.
Typical scenario is round 1 (assume grouped initiative for some monsters):
PC A
Ranger
Monster 1
PC B
PC C
Monster 2 (2 creatures)
PC D
Monster 3 (2 creatures)
The first monster hits PC B for some irrelevant amount of damage, Ranger disruptive strikes it as he hit it on his turn, increasing his damage but not really changing anything. Rounds continue and then on a subsequent round such as round 2, PC D (going after 2 of the monsters) gets in major trouble when both creatures going on monster 3 hammers him. By the time combat rolls back around to monster 2, the first one then almost dropped PC D (who has been in some trouble for a while). The second one then whacks PC D unconscious. On the next initiative immediately after, the sole surviving creature on monster 3 (they probably killed one of them and monster 1 during the previous turn) finishes off PC D.
Had the ranger saved disruptive strike and not just thrown it away on an irrelevant attack, he could have changed the entire combat in a dramatic fashion. But he didn't, because that's not how these powers are used IME. That's my problem with them as they're just great theoretical DPR increasing effects, when they should be dramatically changing combats on their use. It's little wonder that rangers stock up on them while optimizing twin strike as much as possible. It's effectively like getting 3 attacks per round and that, funnily enough is the reason I see them so commonly used.
Incidentally, this is actually a real example and PC D was killed by a shadow (Shadows teleport adjacent to unconscious enemies and gain a +2 bonus to attacks!).
It's more how the power is used and when that matters. Using them right away at the start of the fight is irrelevant. Using it when it matters is the key and I rarely see that with regards to certain classes like Rangers especially (the Artificer in my game Dark Prophecy breaks this tradition in fairness, because shocking feedback gives resist 5 all and so is best used when a target is surrounded. It's damage also isn't terribly great.).I think I can count on one hand the number of combats I've seen (in 13 levels of play) during which a PC unexpectedly went unconscious.
I agree, but that's exactly what these powers are used for: Optimizing DPR. Because more attacks = higher DPR.The latter half of your sentence (DPR) strikes me as a playstyle issue. I don't accept that D&D design should be focuses on CharOP.
Edit: I should also add that my first example is a rarity and a fairly extreme one. In reality, 90% of the time, maybe even more, the ranger would get away with doing that without consequence. So in effect the game directly rewards using these powers every round you can far more than saving them. Indeed there is very little incentive or point to do so. While it did get someone killed a couple of times, for the most part the advantage of increasing your DPR every round far outweighs trying to use these powers tactically, pretty much always.
Last edited: