D&D 5E Nova Damage

[Yunru]

Nope, that would be Novaing several turns in a row (or not Novaing at all depending on just how repeatable it is).

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope, that would be Novaing several turns in a row (or not Novaing at all depending on just how repeatable it is).

Says who?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Nope, that would be Novaing several turns in a row (or not Novaing at all depending on just how repeatable it is).

That definition seems a bit myopic, no offense.

Take two hypothetical characters, A and B. Let's assume both can deal 33 DPR without expending resources.

A can nova for 99 damage once per long rest.

B can nova for 66 damage twice per short rest.

According to your definition, A wins the best at nova award. However, I wouldn't agree with that. When looking at a Sustained two round nova, B is better than A. With short rests, B becomes even better.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your proposed definition seems okay from an academic perspective, but strikes me as fairly useless in practical terms.

 

[rczarnec]

That definition seems a bit myopic, no offense.

Take two hypothetical characters, A and B. Let's assume both can deal 33 DPR without expending resources.

A can nova for 99 damage once per long rest.

B can nova for 66 damage twice per short rest.

According to your definition, A wins the best at nova award. However, I wouldn't agree with that. When looking at a Sustained two round nova, B is better than A. With short rests, B becomes even better.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your proposed definition seems okay from an academic perspective, but strikes me as fairly useless in practical terms.

It looks to me like they are fairly comparable over 2 rounds. Each is doing 132 damage over those rounds with A being more front loaded which may bring additional benefits (finishing off a target before it gets a turn).

 

[Fanaelialae]

It looks to me like they are fairly comparable over 2 rounds. Each is doing 132 damage over those rounds with A being more front loaded which may bring additional benefits (finishing off a target before it gets a turn).

Yeah, that's true. I originally had the base damage at 20, and then changed it to 33 without fixing the latter part of my post. Ooops. Nonetheless, I think the point stands. If you exclusively look at the maximum single round of output that a build can do it's interesting, but it isn't very informative. Unless you somehow play a game where you only average a single round of combat per day of course.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, that's true. I originally had the base damage at 20, and then changed it to 33 without fixing the latter part of my post. Ooops. Nonetheless, I think the point stands. If you exclusively look at the maximum single round of output that a build can do it's interesting, but it isn't very informative. Unless you somehow play a game where you only average a single round of combat per day of course.

No one is suggesting not looking at daily damage total. However, knowing how much front loaded damage you can do is an important consideration. Damage now is better than damage later. It just depends on the rate of return for how much better (ie how many attacks on you and your party you are able to prevent by having that higher early combat damage and actually killing monsters faster).

 

[Xeviat]

"Nova" is rooted back in a translation of "Lord of the Rings"'s famous line from Gandalf: "You Shall Not Pass". It was translated in Spanish to "No Va", and this was taken by gamers to mean going all out when you don't want the monster to survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yunru]

That definition seems a bit myopic, no offense.

Take two hypothetical characters, A and B. Let's assume both can deal 33 DPR without expending resources.

A can nova for 99 damage once per long rest.

B can nova for 66 damage twice per short rest.

According to your definition, A wins the best at nova award. However, I wouldn't agree with that. When looking at a Sustained two round nova, B is better than A. With short rests, B becomes even better.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your proposed definition seems okay from an academic perspective, but strikes me as fairly useless in practical terms.

Unless the two rounds are somehoe connected (such as continuing spells like Moonbeam or Spectral Weapon), I'd still consider them seperate Novas as nothing is stopping B from doing the second lot of high damage in a vompletely different battle.

A has the better nova, but B can Nova more often.

It's almost like the damage an attack does and the number of attacks you make in a turn. So here B is vastly better (since his Nova is 2x short rest), bringing his average daily nova damage up to 396, while A only has 99.

 

[Horwath]

Nova, by its nature, can only be first round.

no,

that would be alpha strike.

Nova would be the round when you deal you maximum possible damage per round if there is a need for it.

But usually it is the first round as you count on to knock out biggest number of opponents before they can retaliate or to force them on the defensive.

 

[Yunru]

no,

that would be alpha strike.

Nova would be the round when you deal you maximum possible damage per round if there is a need for it.

But usually it is the first round as you count on to knock out biggest number of opponents before they can retaliate or to force them on the defensive.

Realised that about fifteen minutes after I posted it, but by then people had already quoted it so changing it seemed pointless.