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

[Ancalagon]

Well... I mean... It's 1d6+Wis or 1d8+Int,

Oh and 1d6+level (not + wis) - so it catches up fast to the artificer boost.

 

[squibbles]

[...] 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.

Generally, in 5e it's more efficient to prevent damage than deal damage if the numbers are equal.

Monsters have lots of hit points and don't do that much damage. PCs have relatively fewer hit points and do lots of damage. If you have your PC mitigate a monster's damage with 1d8+Int, you are, on average, gonna get more bang for your buck than if you add 1d8+Int to your damage.

This is one of the reasons why the 1st level spell cure wounds heals a single creature for 1d8+mod, while 1st level spells that damage a single creature do 3d4+3, 3d8, 4d6, 3d10, etc.

But--as many others have already pointed out--efficiency isn't that important, context will dictate which option is better.

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 [...]

The X HP is very likely going to be less than the Y HP, and Y decreases at a faster rate than X, which makes adding to X more efficient.

But again, context is more important than efficiency.

 

[ccs]

It'd depend entirely upon the character I'm playing.

 

[Deset Gled]

Generally, in 5e it's more efficient to prevent damage than deal damage if the numbers are equal.

I disagree, due to 5e's whack-a-mole healing system. Healing is most efficient if you let a player drop, because any damage that would take you past 0 is ignored. It can cost a lot to block or heal 1d8 or damage, or when you're at 1HP you can ignore 3d8 of damage except for that pesky first step. Also, dropping to 0 and below was much more serious in earlier editions.

 

[Aldarc]

I was taught that it's always better to give than to receive.

 

[squibbles]

I disagree, due to 5e's whack-a-mole healing system. Healing is most efficient if you let a player drop, because any damage that would take you past 0 is ignored. It can cost a lot to block or heal 1d8 or damage, or when you're at 1HP you can ignore 3d8 of damage except for that pesky first step. Also, dropping to 0 and below was much more serious in earlier editions.

Damage prevention is more mathematically efficient, point for point, than inflicting damage (for PCs... usually) but there are plenty of cases where leveraging the death rules--assuming that no variant death and dying rules are in play--would be a more efficient use of resources over the course of an encounter or an adventuring day.

Do note, though, that the 3rd level psi-warrior feature that @Ancalagon is asking about doesn't heal damage and can't bring a PC up if he/she drops, it only prevents damage.

But we're getting into a lot of incomparables, so let me restate my (near uselessly wishy-washy) intended takeaway:

context is more important than efficiency.

 

[tetrasodium]

Damage prevention is more mathematically efficient, point for point, than inflicting damage (for PCs... usually) but there are plenty of cases where leveraging the death rules--assuming that no variant death and dying rules are in play--would be a more efficient use of resources over the course of an encounter or an adventuring day.

Do note, though, that the 3rd level psi-warrior feature that @Ancalagon is asking about doesn't heal damage and can't bring a PC up if he/she drops, it only prevents damage.

But we're getting into a lot of incomparables, so let me restate my (near uselessly wishy-washy) intended takeaway:

It's not a 1:1 thing though. If something drops bob it's statistically almost certain that some fraction of the damage will simply go away when bob gets healed. Often a significant fraction to boot. Doing otherwise would require bob to have exactly as many current hp as the attacker dealt in damage.

Even if the healer does less damage than bob it's still better to attack & let him drop until he actually drops. Healing abilities tend to be made to exploit the damage beyond zero & death save rules rather than being significant enough to counter damage. the artillerist heal turret might be the only exception.

 

[Ancalagon]

There seems to be a broad agreement that "timing matters" - there really are moments where it's very clear that one or the other is "the thing to do" at that moment.

But what about when there is no pressing "need" to do more/prevent more damage? (round 1 is a good example).

 

[Shiroiken]

It's not a 1:1 thing though. If something drops bob it's statistically almost certain that some fraction of the damage will simply go away when bob gets healed. Often a significant fraction to boot. Doing otherwise would require bob to have exactly as many current hp as the attacker dealt in damage.

Conversely, damage beyond the creature's HP is just as wasted. While you can meta-game healing, you can't with damage unless the DM tells you their HP. Reducing damage by 8 will always save 8 HP, but adding 8 damage might only amount to 1 point of damage (or even 0 if the attack would drop the creature anyway).

While off point (which is damage reduction vs extra damage), healing downed companions can be less efficient, since the companion might lose an action as a result. Gaining even 10 extra HP isn't worth losing out on a round of attacks or spellcasting, not to mention losing Concentration or other active abilities like Rage.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Perhaps the better question isn't are they roughly equivalent but rather, when is one better than the other.