Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 9834230" data-attributes="member: 6802951">The issue is that D&D (most editions) doesn't generally allow that level of tradeoff. If the maths that you suggest worked, then defence would indeed be a viable alternative to nova.However, particularly for martial-type characters, there aren't any options that let them reduce incoming damage by more than half, while still dealing more than half their base damage. Recharging after each battle doesn't come into it: Trying to be defensive will often result in more damage taken over that fight, not less, requiring more resources.What are the options for the average sword-swinger? Shields are not effectively or realistically implemented in D&D and do not generally provide a defensive improvement commensurate with the loss of damage dealt, particularly given boss attacks and tactics. Rather than your suggested maths, building into defensive shield use rather than offensive two-weapon or two-handed use will often actually reduce damage dealt by half, but will not reduce incoming damage by as much as half.Likewise with the dodge action: you are generally reducing your damage dealt severely - often to nothing, but you are not reducing your incoming damage by the same fraction.So unless you can provide options to the party that allow them to change the maths to the example you are giving, the maths is almost always going to support damage.</blockquote>