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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7237005" data-attributes="member: 71699">You should really rule out GFB, or impose a ratio for bounces (how often is a second foe within 5' of first foe?). And a ratio for SA conditions and Sentinel conditions being met by having allies nearby, and SA conditions being met for advantage (or does poster need to specify how they're yielding or not requiring advantage?) Also target AC, saves, Athletics and HP. And opening distances (could be a random point with in a range with a flat distribution, or a normal distribution.)I see a lot of theory-crafting around damage-dealing that ignores applicability. A better abstract construct for force will identifies that "For damage to be effective, we must apply it". When you write that down you think - "That's hardly rocket science!" - don't you?! Think of the contrary construction, "For damage to be effective, we need not apply it". Application requires awareness of target, range to target, ability to move to target: our ability to dominate in those dimensions will act as force multipliers. What would be really great would be to have an improved construct.Most people seem to simply godamage*accuracythe elements that I think we need to see in the estimate aredamage*accuracya construct for distance, range and movementconstructs for satisfying a few major preconditions (e.g. Sneak Attack, cleave, advantage, Sentinel, Riposte, GFB bounce) which of course some builds will be able to demonstrate are obviated and treat as some pre-decided fractionI like that you specify a "day". I am finding 4 combats with 5 rounds each, with 1 short rest between them, more common. Maybe just because it fits my real world constraints better, but I've heard other DMs say something similar. Still - it's very right minded to assert it because it caps superiority dice per combat etc.</blockquote>

Verification