The Overkill Damage Fallacy

[FrogReaver]

Just what you were /trying/ to say wasn't clear.

Or it was perfectly clear and you were so caught up in how you thought things worked that you just ignored what I was saying.

You're on about that oddity of D&D hps that an enemy is still fighting at full power even at 1 hp, which introduces a sort of rounding effect. Wounded rounds down to alive, so if your attack can only kill, never wound, your curve remains smooth & symmetrical, but if it can wound, it gets pulled in, becomes lopsided, because wounded enemies are counted the same as untouched enemies.

That's not at all what I'm talking about.

I still don't see what it has to do with the 'overkill' issue, though. In your example, both hypothetical characters overkill the same hypothetical enemies by the same amount when they drop them. When overkill is eliminated for one, but not the other - 4 hp enemies, was the first instance someone brought up - it flip-flops.

The point that I'm making is that there are other potentially more important factors at play than overkill. Thus brining overkill into the discussion while ignoring those other potentially more important factors is the issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

If we looked at some of the actual high end nova builds and what they are pumping out at mid-high levels I think this conversation would mean more. The more individual attacks a players has (nova or not) the better the chance that at least in some encounters you will fail to find optimal targets for your optimal damage. Seriously though, you want to piss off an Assassin? Send him 50 goblins. Nova away sir. Jokes aside, I'd bet that the genesis of this kind of question comes from people looking at immense novas and thinking well isn't that ... silly. 500+ damage?! Jesus murphy. Can I think of a way to at least kinda convince myself that it's not silly? Hmm .... maybe an overkill fallacy will help me sleep at night.

You shouldn't provide silly guesses when you can ask the person that started the thread what brought this on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's not at all what I'm talking about.

That was the problem, yes.

The point that I'm making is that there are other potentially more important factors at play than overkill. Thus brining overkill into the discussion while ignoring those other potentially more important factors is the issue.

I'm not convinced overkill is a meaningful concept in the first place.
Overkilled is still killed and exactly-killed is a coincidence.
It was considering two beatsticks beating down their hp pinatas at the same rate to be doing so at different rates that sounded squirelly.
I let myself forget just how squirelly D&D hps can get.

 

[FrogReaver]

That was the problem, yes.

I'm not convinced overkill is a meaningful concept in the first place.
Overkilled is still killed and exactly-killed is a coincidence.
It was considering two beatsticks beating down their hp pinatas at the same rate to be doing so at different rates that sounded squirelly.
I let myself forget just how squirelly D&D hps can get.

No problem. I never have put much stock in overkill. But a big portion of that is no one has actually attempted to quantify it in a meaningful way. I'm close to being able to do so at least for the quasi PC's I'm using that have static damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No problem. I never have put much stock in overkill. But a big portion of that is no one has actually attempted to quantify it in a meaningful way. I'm close to being able to do so at least for the quasi PC's I'm using that have static damage.

It /seems/ significant in the kinds of simplified scenarios DPR calculations represent, because you can have things like hypothetical Big BeatStick doing exactly twice as much damage as the hypothetical little beatstick that attacks twice as often, for exactly the same damage, and who each always attack enemies in isolation.

 

[Fenris-77]

You shouldn't provide silly guesses when you can ask the person that started the thread what brought this on.

You're not the only guy here Frog. And it's pretty obvious that opinion in the thread is informed by a much wider ranger of opinion and examples than just the one you started with. Don't fret sir, if I wanted to ask you a direct question, silly or otherwise, I would have.

 

[Garthanos]

Greetings Professor Optimization

Making the game mechanics so optimization has only a limited impact seems important for the sake of fun doesnt it?

 

[Mistwell]

Making the game mechanics so optimization has only a limited impact seems important for the sake of fun doesnt it?

They did that pretty well for this edition. Bounded accuracy, for the most part, did its job. The weaker beastmaster ranger isn't that much off from the stronger Ranged Paladin Hexblade Smiter. There is a gap there, but it's not so bad that you can't deal with both in the same game without things breaking down.

 

[Garthanos]

They did that pretty well for this edition. Bounded accuracy, for the most part, did its job. The weaker beastmaster ranger isn't that much off from the stronger Ranged Paladin Hexblade Smiter. There is a gap there, but it's not so bad that you can't deal with both in the same game without things breaking down.

My son seemed to be able to accidentally optimize a Paladin for his first character enough to defeat enemies which were designed for a full party several levels higher by himself ... which either defeats the fun of optimizing or just seems mildly like they reduced the character balance significantly from 4e. (or designed for a full party 3 levels higher doesn't mean the same thing when you can supernova trivially).

I know its just an anecdote but one that makes me less than convinced I can trust this latest edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I know its just an anecdote but one that makes me less than convinced I can trust this latest edition.

You can trust it as far as you can mod it.

Which is as far as youre willing to take it. DM Empowerment is about trusting the DM over the system. 4e didn't set the stage properly for that (neither did 3e, so it's not /just/ about balance), it left DMs hesitant to go full-bore variant and/or improv, and vested players in what yhe system had to offer (3e, too, it just offered rewards for systemastery, too).

Making the game mechanics so optimization has only a limited impact seems important for the sake of fun doesnt it?

I know you're indirectly advocating for game balance - though the resolution of the edition war has demonstrated it to be anathema in the context of D&D - but 5e also curbs system mastery, by subordinating the system to the DM, you can't acquire your rewards for mastering the RaW when there is no established RaW, only each DMs interpretations & rulings - and, even then, they can be overridden case by case.


...and, really DPR threads like this are as (ir?)relevant in any ed, a price we pay for the relatively simple & effective modeling of "plot armor" that is hps.