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="Cognomen's Cassowary" data-source="post: 6877020" data-attributes="member: 6801445">For the multiplier related to resistances, I used the information available here: <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage" target="_blank">http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage</a>. For each type of damage, I began at 430, which is the number of stat blocks in the monster manual, from which I subtracted 0.5 for each resistant enemy and 1 for each immune enemy. I added 1 for each vulnerable enemy. I then divided the total for each damage type by 430 to arrive at the final percentage.The multipliers for save chance are a little more complicated. I found the median AC and ability modifier of every challenge rating (fun fact: dexterity is the only one that trends downward), to which I added the median save proficiency for each ability at each CR. [That, I think, is the weakest aspect of the process, since proficiency is an on-off toggle, so the median is limited to uncommon (+0), semi-common (+half proficiency), or common (+proficiency). I may yet explore using the mean instead, but that comes with its own set of problems.] Thus having a median defensive-modifier for AC and each ability at each CR, I determined what kind of "to hit" mod would be needed to deal full damage to each, at each CR, with 60% of attacks and save-forcing effects. I used 60% because that is the "standard" assumed by many class guides. I found the mean of the needed modifier for each ability and AC across all CRs [using the mean here may also be a problem], to create an index for each, thus abstracting across all levels to find a relative value for each ability and AC. These indices say nothing useful in game terms but remain proportional to each other. I could thus establish a percentage chance to deal full damage when targeting each, across all levels, relative to an overall chance of 60%. (For the curious, the numbers are, from top to bottom, Int 71.0%, AC 67.6% [I raise this to 72.6% in calculations due to the chance to crit], Dex 66.5%, Wis 57.1%, Str 56.3%, Cha 54.4%, Con 47.0%.)I will be the first to admit that it is not perfect, and there is no way to account for context and a DM's tendencies, but I consider it less arbitrary than, "I think there's a lot more creatures resistant to fire than there are resistant to necrotic."--though that "best guess" happens to be right. Even if you find fault with my methods (and I don't doubt that you will), you cannot claim that targeting Con is generally better than targeting Dex. If you have fought a reasonable number of enemies above CR1, you will know from experience that that is not the case.Besides that, the "arbitrary" numbers don't actually have a huge impact--if anything, they allow that ADHW is fairly competitive with CL. It can be better in the right circumstances. Its major deficiency is the rarity of those right circumstances, which is why I phrased my conclusion the way that I did. Though I think that ADHW pales in comparison to CL, it is the difficulty of use rather than the damage difference that convinces me. It can still be effective in the right hands.I would say, "I eagerly await your analysis." but I can respect your preference to not bring your work into your hobby. I don't really have a horse in this race; I just thought it would be fun to do a bit of direct comparison and see which came out on top. Based on that, I consider ADHW not a bad spell but a niche one.</blockquote>

Verification