Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Esker" data-source="post: 7999390" data-attributes="member: 6966824">Just to make things even more complicated, sometimes what you care about isn't how the success chance differs, but rather something like how many rolls it takes to get a failure (or a success). Take AC, for example. You might think based on the preceding discussion that imposing disadvantage to hit you would be worth the most if the enemy would normally need a nat 11 or higher to hit you, because disadvantage makes that 25/75, which is like a +5 to your AC -- huge! But arguably the more important number is that you've gone from being able to take two attacks per hit to taking four attacks per hit; your longevity has doubled. If you're already hard to hit (say they need a 17, for a 20% chance), then disadvantage makes that 4% --- only like a +3 to your AC now, but you've gone from being able to take five attacks per hit to being able to take twenty-five, so your longevity has quintupled!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Esker, post: 7999390, member: 6966824"] Just to make things even more complicated, sometimes what you care about isn't how the success chance differs, but rather something like how many rolls it takes to get a failure (or a success). Take AC, for example. You might think based on the preceding discussion that imposing disadvantage to hit you would be worth the most if the enemy would normally need a nat 11 or higher to hit you, because disadvantage makes that 25/75, which is like a +5 to your AC -- huge! But arguably the more important number is that you've gone from being able to take two attacks per hit to taking four attacks per hit; your longevity has doubled. If you're already hard to hit (say they need a 17, for a 20% chance), then disadvantage makes that 4% --- only like a +3 to your AC now, but you've gone from being able to take five attacks per hit to being able to take twenty-five, so your longevity has quintupled! [/QUOTE]

Verification