Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8773709" data-attributes="member: 7030563">Not the good ones, and I would say they are typically closer to an action.Quick toss, Brace and Repost are ALWAYS more than one attack because they are an extra attack with an extra damage bouns and in the cast of a Rogue usually equate to an extra sneak attack.Menacing attack generally causes an enemy to waste an entire turn and gives him disadvantage when it doesn't do this, and disarming attack, taking an enemies weapon or spell focus, are both far more than one attack in power if he fails his save (which is most of the time for menacing attack).Pushing attack  allows you to move an enemy 15  feet this is the equivalent of three shoves (equivalent of 3 attacks) and disengage (which is an action). It is a bit situational, but it is more than an attack in the situations you would use it.Well if the familiar is not being used or is irrelevant then I would not attack him.Here is some math -A 5th level GWM fighter in plate with a greatsword and 5th level wizard in mage armor-bladesong-blur fighting a Troll:1. In 3 rounds if I use my first attack to kill the familiar, I do 38 damage to the fighter and I take 55 damage (42 from the fighter 13 from the Wizard).  Everyone is still in the fight, assuming the Wizard hit with GFB twice, I have 39 hit points left.2. In 3 rounds if I concentrate on the fighter from the start I do 41.5 damage to the fighter and I take 78 damage (65 from the fighter, 13 from the Wizard).  Statistically I have about 16 hps left and will die in round 4.3. If I concentrate on the Wizard I do 1.5 damage to the wizard and I take 78 damage.  The chance of knocking down conncentration on blur using all 9 attacks is aproximately 3%.Ok, what if the Wizard uses Haste on the fighter instead of blur and follows it with a carefully placed fireball in round 2 and then dodges in the 3rd round:1. If I attack  the familiar first and the Fighter second I do 38 damage and I take 105 damage (82 from the fighter, 23 from the wizard) and die in round 3.2. If I can attack the Wizard trying to break his concentration and he has a 10 constitution, in 2 rounds  statistically I do 8.7 damage on average, I take 98 damage which is enough to kill me in 2 rounds. If I survive through good rolls, the average damage on 3 rounds is 140 (23 Fireball, 117 from the fighter).  My chance of breaking his concentration on his haste is less than 20% in 2 rounds and that is with a 10 constitution and assumes I can get to him in melee. That is using a wizard you can get to in melee with a 10  constitution!Sure, but we are talking about a 1st level spell in the example you gave and if it is that important you would cast it again.It is usually going to take a lot more than 2 attacks to break concentration.  Against a frail back line Wizard it is going to take 5 or so as long as he has not buffed con or taken warcaster, but it is generally not easy to get to such a wizard as they tend to stay out of combat.  Against a Wizard with a good con save and good armor class it  is going to take more than 5 attacks typically.In the example I gave above with a 10 con bladesinger in what would be a "hard" encounter it is statistically going to take 13 attacks with a +7 attack roll to break his concentration (assuming he has not buffed himself).  Faerie Fire or Haste (on someone else) or Fear or Polymorph and the number is still the same, 13 attacks at +7 and that assumes he does not dodge to support his concentration.  Make it Blur or put the haste on him instead of the fighter and it is even more attacks (126 attacks to knock down blur or about 75 attacks to knock down haste if he hasted himself).It might be impossible, in fact it is impossible quite often, but not as often as it is impossible to get to a wizard (as the Familiar has to be close enough to use his help action).  Disadvantage is not that big a deal when AC is 11.Many don't, but many do as well</blockquote>

Verification