Recent content by FrogReaver

You've forgotten maybe the most important step. This needs multiplied by the damage increase of you getting an extra round (assuming it's an actual extra round which i'm not on board with but since you view it that way then it needs accounted for that way). In a 4 round encounter an extra...

I think the key take away is, winning initiative isn't actually an extra turn compared to not winning it. In the 1v1 scenario you could say it's essentially equivalent to an extra turn, but as soon as you move to a 4PC vs 5enemy encounter it's nowhere close to that.

This makes no sense. Battlemaster dice only add damage, not extra rounds.

Not for the method I just proposed. The complaint isn't that I'm making assumptions, it's that the assumptions i'm having to make are far from universal and not very consisent. Well no, you going first isn't enough to actually get an extra turn. You could have went 4th and still had the same...

yes, and? Which is the basis for what makes DPR such a useful metric. DPR measures your damage per round. Getting extra damage along with an extra round means your DPR remains unchanged.

Here's what I think the proper way to handle initiative would in terms of DPR would be. Consider the observation that a party doing double DPR halves the number of enemy turns. That is enemy turns and DPR are inversely proportional. So if we can determine the expected difference in enemy...

Party initiative order is one of the primary drivers of after action damage reports. But that's because enemies have a finite amount of hp and so PC's are competing to drain it in such reports. Doing a larger share there automatically means your allies did less just because you did more...

It's meaningless if it means your ally did less because of it and no enemies would have otherwise done more. Or more importantly, it would imply that a really high initiative ally would lower your DPR. That cannot be right! No idea what this means. I'm asking how do you count having extra...

What if A's extra turn comes at the expense of his ally B's extra turn? Also, what if there are 2 or more enemies? That is the concept of an extra turn starts to fall apart when you move beyond the 1v1 scenario and i don't know what we should actually be measuring instead.

I've been thinking about how to actually compare initiative bonuses to damage. For a single PC vs a single enemy I'm certain it can be done, but when one adds in #m PCs and #n enemies, it becomes much less clear. For example with just 1 allied PC and 1 enemy, winning initiative may not result...

That’s not the question. It’s what would be their optimal choice based on the info they have. You as dm should have a good idea of this.

So what do you envision the players should do assuming they really need the rest? Leave the area? Isn’t that also dangerous?

That’s a bit better but still not great. What does being militaristic and organized have to do with the amount of resources they devote to a patrol finding a tiny hut where it shouldn’t be. How the heck can the players make any decision about whether tiny hut is likely to be beneficial here or...

The problem is the fail state for when it is not useful that you are describing is 1) catastrophic failure. All the enemies in the dungeon converge on you at once for using this spell. Whereas without it you might have had your rest interrupted and possibly be ambushed if your watch failed...

You really have 3 options. Make using the spell worse. Make it better. Or make it equal. Now if you proposed some way to telegraph when it would be better or worse or equal I could get behind that as a meaningful decision point for the players, but when your only reaction is -‘make it worse...