Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6877104" data-attributes="member: 15700">That's the thing.&nbsp; My analysis doesn't need to go farther than, &quot;You're assuming by your methodology several things that are not given, including but not limited to: every monster will be encountered an equal number of times in an equal number of individual creatures, that there wouldn't be more than 7 targets in a 30ft cube/radius, the environment is white room for each scenario, etc etc.&nbsp; Secondly, your definitions of what is &quot;better&quot; or &quot;good&quot; is based on subjectivity, not objectivity.&quot;You're making a classic, and very basic mistake of basic analysis.&nbsp; You're taking many assumptions without looking into context, and applying them as some sort of mathematical formula when an objective formula simply cannot exist because the number of impactable factors are infinite.&nbsp; Therefore, it is impossible for you to say with any sort of accuracy that one spell is &quot;objectively&quot; anything over another.&nbsp; Especially when some of your metrics are subjective by definition (what is &quot;good&quot; to one person is not &quot;good&quot; to another).&nbsp; I also can't figure out why you keep using &quot;to hit&quot; when talking about saves.&nbsp; There is no &quot;hit&quot;.&nbsp; It's either &quot;fail save, make save for half, or no effect&quot;.And that's really my big beef with things like this.&nbsp; You (general you, not you specifically even though this particular example is you), have a list of biases, and you arbitrarily throw together a bunch of numbers that fall apart at the most basic level of scrutiny of the methodology, and act like it's some objective truth.&nbsp; It's something that seems to plague our hobby in particular.&nbsp; &quot;Oh!&nbsp; Look at these formulas with all the maths!&nbsp; Just ignore all the things like how and where and what is actually going on in the game....&quot;For example, using your example, as soon as you start putting in more than 7 creatures in the same area of effect, AHW suddenly soars way above chain lightning.&nbsp; Or maybe in a campaign your PCs happen to face a lot more creatures vulnerable to necrotic/not resistant to lightning.&nbsp; Or any other number of scenarios.Basically, all the time spent throwing in variables and arbitrarily assigning values is a giant waste of your time in a game where there are an infinite number of possible scenarios that can turn your formula on its head.&nbsp; If you like doing that, then knock yourself out.&nbsp; But don't try to pretend there's any real accuracy there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6877104, member: 15700"] That's the thing. My analysis doesn't need to go farther than, "You're assuming by your methodology several things that are not given, including but not limited to: every monster will be encountered an equal number of times in an equal number of individual creatures, that there wouldn't be more than 7 targets in a 30ft cube/radius, the environment is white room for each scenario, etc etc. Secondly, your definitions of what is "better" or "good" is based on subjectivity, not objectivity." You're making a classic, and very basic mistake of basic analysis. You're taking many assumptions without looking into context, and applying them as some sort of mathematical formula when an objective formula simply [i]cannot[/i] exist because the number of impactable factors are infinite. Therefore, it is [i]impossible[/i] for you to say with any sort of accuracy that one spell is "objectively" anything over another. Especially when some of your metrics are subjective by definition (what is "good" to one person is not "good" to another). I also can't figure out why you keep using "to hit" when talking about saves. There is no "hit". It's either "fail save, make save for half, or no effect". And that's really my big beef with things like this. You (general you, not you specifically even though this particular example is you), have a list of biases, and you arbitrarily throw together a bunch of numbers that fall apart at the most basic level of scrutiny of the methodology, and act like it's some objective truth. It's something that seems to plague our hobby in particular. "Oh! Look at these formulas with all the maths! Just ignore all the things like how and where and what is actually going on in the game...." For example, using your example, as soon as you start putting in more than 7 creatures in the same area of effect, AHW suddenly soars way above chain lightning. Or maybe in a campaign your PCs happen to face a lot more creatures vulnerable to necrotic/not resistant to lightning. Or any other number of scenarios. Basically, all the time spent throwing in variables and arbitrarily assigning values is a giant waste of your time in a game where there are an infinite number of possible scenarios that can turn your formula on its head. If you like doing that, then knock yourself out. But don't try to pretend there's any real accuracy there. [/QUOTE]

Verification