D&D 5E Is it better to prevent or inflict damage? (psi warrior, battle master, others)

[Ancalagon]

Hello

There are a number of classes that can spend a resource to inflict damage, or spend the same resource to prevent damage. A very clear example of this is the Psi Warrior, who can use a resource (psi dice) to either hit harder or shield someone from damage. There are several other classes with this dilema (the battle master can use a maneuver dice to parry for example), but the psi warrior has a very direct equivalence - spend a psi die to do/prevent 1d8+int bonus damage, so I'm going to use this one since it's so clear.

If the damage prevention can stop someone from going down, that is a very good use of the psi point.... but you could also make the example of making more damage that is sufficient to take down a foe. So it's unclear to me if one is clearly better than the other, or if it's situational, or roughly equivalent.

 

[ph0rk]

Dead enemies inflict no damage. Unless you or an ally is at death's door, use resources to kill.

And even in the latter case, I'd make the call based on the scenario - if they are just gonna get downed on the next creature in the initiative order's turn, don't bother.

 

[jgsugden]

The truth is that it is highly dependent upon the style of game, your allies, etc... To that end, you're better served deciding what fits your character and going with it.

You may get the "offense is the best defense" line of thinking a lot, where taking down the enemy faster also prevents monster attacks, but that ignores the selective nature of damage. The party has to rest when one PC is unable to continue, and if you can prevent the damage to the most at risk PC, you may be extending the PC capability a lot - especially if that PC is your group healer.

You are far better off, as a player, makingt he choice that best suits the PC's personality.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Tactics, schmactics. I think it is more heroic and story-generating (and, thus, fun) in most scenarios to use the Psi power ability to prevent a low HP ally from going down.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From a purely mechanical perspective, it's in large part about positioning and initiative order, as well as who else is in the party. It also matters as to whether people are attacking downed targets.

For example, if a Warlock is about to go down, and his turn was coming up soon (before, say, the Cleric), then if you don't prevent the damage, you miss a round of damage that he could have done, because even if the Cleric then gets him back up, he's not up until his next turn, having missed one.

If a Fighter is in combat and goes down, and the enemies get to go, you have a couple of problems - firstly, they can now safely move away from him with no threat of Opportunity Attack. Secondly, they can attack him if he's downed, with Advantage (weirdly RAW in 5E I think you keep your DEX bonus whilst unconscious lol), and get auto-crits (so two death saves removed - thus two hits kills him). Even if the Cleric gets him back up before its his turn, if the monsters have moved away, he has to spend his move getting up from prone, so won't be able to go after them, so you likely lose his DPR this round.

There will be some corner-case situations where it would be better to let someone go down and just do the extra damage (particularly if there is only a single opponent left), but I think if you are looking at it in terms of 5E mechanics, the general rule-of-thumb would be - prevent people getting downed wherever possible, because the odds are good it'll get you at least an extra round of DPR out of them, and you may even save their life (esp. if they're melees).

 

[Steampunkette]

In the end? It doesn't matter. Your side has X HP and your enemy has Y HP. It's a race to see which side hits 0 first.

If you can add 10 to your side or subtract 10 from theirs, the equation is the same. One side or the other will hit 0. By keeping your side in the higher numbers, though, or at least from falling, you maintain uptime on your damage output, which is useful.

Of course that only matters in straight up fights. If you're doing a hit and run maneuver, healing is 100% more effective because you don't want to leave someone behind. Similarly, a delaying action will make better use of healing than of hitting an implacable foe.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you can add 10 to your side or subtract 10 from theirs, the equation is the same.

Absolutely not.

Sorry but it really is absolutely not true at all.

Not even in "straight up" fights is that true, because the HP aren't a giant unified pool everyone draws from (unless you have some very wacky house rules). Stopping a PC going down may well buy you an extra round or more of DPR from that PC. That is likely to be significantly more than the bonus damage you'd have done.

Unless your bonus damage is so large it's larger than an entire round of DPR from that PC, the rule of thumb has got to be "keep them up". It is simply not mechanically correct to claim that it's functionally equal. Think about turn orders, think about missed rounds. Hell, keeping someone up might give you multiple rounds of DPR from them if the situation changes. The only time it's definitely not going to be worth it is if they protection you can do isn't going to be enough to keep them up.

 

[MarkB]

If the damage prevention can stop someone from going down, that is a very good use of the psi point.... but you could also make the example of making more damage that is sufficient to take down a foe. So it's unclear to me if one is clearly better than the other, or if it's situational, or roughly equivalent.

Depending upon table style, you're often likely to have a better idea of whether you'll be able to prevent an ally from dropping than whether your extra bit of damage is enough to finish off a foe.

That said, either option is pretty useful, and you've only got one reaction, so basically just do the first one that comes up during the round.

 

[Steampunkette]

Absolutely not.

Sorry but it really is absolutely not true at all.

Not even in "straight up" fights is that true, because the HP aren't a giant unified pool everyone draws from (unless you have some very wacky house rules). Stopping a PC going down may well buy you an extra round or more of DPR from that PC. That is likely to be significantly more than the bonus damage you'd have done.

Unless your bonus damage is so large it's larger than an entire round of DPR from that PC, the rule of thumb has got to be "keep them up". It is simply not mechanically correct to claim that it's functionally equal. Think about turn orders, think about missed rounds. Hell, keeping someone up might give you multiple rounds of DPR from them if the situation changes. The only time it's definitely not going to be worth it is if they protection you can do isn't going to be enough to keep them up.

If someone is on the edge of dropping? Yes.

If someone isn't on the edge of dropping? No.

Healing doesn't -have- to wait 'til the last second, though I know a lot of parties prefer to play it that way. It's generally better to keep everyone at least one crit away from the ground. But more is always better.

Which is why the rest of the paragraph specifically notes "Or at least from falling" which you cut out of the context.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If someone is on the edge of dropping? Yes.

If someone isn't on the edge of dropping? No.

Healing doesn't -have- to wait 'til the last second, though I know a lot of parties prefer to play it that way. It's generally better to keep everyone at least one crit away from the ground. But more is always better.

I mean, whether they're about to drop or not it actually can be helpful. It's just if they're not you're guessing at the future. If someone seems likely to take more damage, then yeah shielding them is likely to be better. If they're about to drop you can be pretty much sure it's better - so that just removes the guesswork.

As for keeping PCs "at least one crit away from the ground", I don't think that's even physically possible until like, what level 5 or 6 or something, given how big some low-level monsters can crit. Even then it largely means keeping people topped up until like what level 8? Obviously some PCs have waaaaaaaaaaay more HP so will meet this threshold sooner.