Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9127801" data-attributes="member: 2525">Now you're getting a bit in the weeds. Yes, for all class optimization analysis we assume voluntary non-automatic choices like that are helpful to the task because otherwise you wouldn't choose to do it. Much like, to keep everything consistent, we assume all damage is meaningful, for all classes and analysis. And yes, all classes in that analysis assumes crits as well. The trick is to keep everything consistent for all measurements such that, if something is over-damaging or there is some other issue at play where we don't have data to make it more perfect, at least it's doing the same for everything else too in the comparison. If you're not familiar with how optimization (for 30 years now) works for D&D that's fair. But your reply is basically "I don't find this useful" when thousands do and have been doing so for a very, VERY long time now. Either you accept the basic premise of optimization itself is something you can get use out of or you don't. But at the point where you don't then I guess let the people who do find it useful discuss it rather than crap on what other people appreciate about it? You can be sure, given what Crawford has said even even very recently, that he also finds it helpful in balancing classes and abilities and is not dismissive of it either.</blockquote>