Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4265250" data-attributes="member: 5889">So I ran some math to compare these two powers, and the results are so one sided I thought I had to share.Let's assume a ranger is wielding two longswords, and is attacking his hunter's quarry. He has the option of choosing twin strike or careful shot. Which one will net him the most damage?If the ranger has higher than a 10% chance of hitting, twin strike does more damage. Not only that, twin strike has a better chance to hit at least once.However, that's assuming both weapons are the same. So let's go big, and say the ranger has a +3 longsword in his primary, and a +0 in his offhand. That's a tremendous difference, so it should give us a good gauge.Now, Twin Strike still does more damage as long as the main hand has a 35% chance of hitting or better (the off hand has a 20% chance or better). Again remember, that's a difference of +3, which in most dnd games should NOT be occurring.Still not convinced? Let's take out the hunter's quarry and see if perhaps careful shot does better without the quarry.The answer....not at all. Even with that +3 longsword difference in the main and offhand, as long as the ranger has a 35% chance with that main hand of hitting, twin strike is better.Twin Strike does more damage. Twin strike is more flexible (you can attack two targets instead of one). Twin strike gives you more chances to crit, and remember you can choose which attack to put your quarry on, so that's more oppurtunity for your quarry to crit.In fact, twin strike has such a large advantage I can't see any reason to take careful shot. Even if there are some crazy corner cases where careful shot is useful, why would you choose it when twin strike is better 99% of the time?</blockquote>

Verification