Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6916572" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Excuse my misunderstanding, as it did seem the only possibility given that you were saying the rest of us aren't supposed to point out when the feat isn't a viable damage boost.I see where the confusion seems to lie. When comparing the DPR of the -5/+10 boost vs. +2 strength, it is clear and unquestioned that the times when the -5/+10 option isn't used that the +2 strength has superior DPR, since it is both more accurate and more damaging.So that means that all we need to know is A) how much the use of the -5/+10 actually improves DPR in those occassions that it is an improvement, and B) how many situations in which the use of the -5/+10 improves damage vs. how many it doesn't.That is why the comparisons are done in the way they are, assuming use of the -5/+10 even though it might not be enhancing DPR against that particular AC, because the result then tells us either that this is a situation where there is a boost and how much that boost is, or that this is a situation where the feat is not providing a damage boost.So no, it isn't a mistake to do the comparisons that way - though there can be a mistake made in assuming how frequently a particular AC is or isn't going to come up in a campaign, since that assumption might match one campaign, but not another.</blockquote>