Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8228197" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I said 3+ actions not 3+ rounds.&nbsp; Could be 3 actions from you or a combination of 3+ actions from you and your allies.One could make a pretty strong case that in most games the encounters you face are somewhat dependent on your groups abilities.&nbsp; If so then less consistency may actually help as the encounters you face may actually decrease in strength as the DM and players will be more likely to experience some bad runs of bad luck and thus be more careful overall regarding the encounters they engage in.If your point is that against 2 identical challenges that the lower variance always better then I would have to disagree.&nbsp; It will depend on whether it's a challenge you are likely on average to win.&nbsp; If so then low variance helps.&nbsp; If not then high variance helps.&nbsp; (Assuming equal DPR of course)But going back to my main point - by the time your party is spending 3+ actions (some with multiple attacks) to defeat an enemy the additional variance due to you being a rogue or a fighter is pretty miniscule.Using your action for a high risk high reward action doesn't turn that into a bad decision even if unsuccessful.&nbsp; Taking a risk and not having it pay off isn't the same as skipping your action altogether.The higher the CR, then typically the more rolls you are making to defeat the encounter - meaning variance is reduced due to number of rolls.&nbsp; Your variance on a single attack or turn doesn't matter much if it takes 2 rounds of the whole party acting to down the enemy.I wanted to add, I agree that reducing your odds of a TPK is a worthy goal - but 1 out of 5 characters being a rogue instead of a fighter isn't going to alter the group damage dynamics enough to matter in regards of TPK in 99.99999% of situations.&nbsp; Then you've got to account for the TPK's that happened due to more reliable but lower DPR and the most I think we can conclude is that damage with the same DPR but less variance is ever so slightly better than the same damage with higher variance.&nbsp; (Obviously variance is significant on lower hp enemies).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8228197, member: 6795602"] I said 3+ actions not 3+ rounds. Could be 3 actions from you or a combination of 3+ actions from you and your allies. One could make a pretty strong case that in most games the encounters you face are somewhat dependent on your groups abilities. If so then less consistency may actually help as the encounters you face may actually decrease in strength as the DM and players will be more likely to experience some bad runs of bad luck and thus be more careful overall regarding the encounters they engage in. If your point is that against 2 identical challenges that the lower variance always better then I would have to disagree. It will depend on whether it's a challenge you are likely on average to win. If so then low variance helps. If not then high variance helps. (Assuming equal DPR of course) But going back to my main point - by the time your party is spending 3+ actions (some with multiple attacks) to defeat an enemy the additional variance due to you being a rogue or a fighter is pretty miniscule. Using your action for a high risk high reward action doesn't turn that into a bad decision even if unsuccessful. Taking a risk and not having it pay off isn't the same as skipping your action altogether. The higher the CR, then typically the more rolls you are making to defeat the encounter - meaning variance is reduced due to number of rolls. Your variance on a single attack or turn doesn't matter much if it takes 2 rounds of the whole party acting to down the enemy. I wanted to add, I agree that reducing your odds of a TPK is a worthy goal - but 1 out of 5 characters being a rogue instead of a fighter isn't going to alter the group damage dynamics enough to matter in regards of TPK in 99.99999% of situations. Then you've got to account for the TPK's that happened due to more reliable but lower DPR and the most I think we can conclude is that damage with the same DPR but less variance is ever so slightly better than the same damage with higher variance. (Obviously variance is significant on lower hp enemies). [/QUOTE]

Verification