Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7531123" data-attributes="member: 16814">Okay, then, simple question:&nbsp; you have two targets.&nbsp; The first needs an 11 to hit, the second a 20.&nbsp; You have disadvantage on your attacks.&nbsp; Who do you attack?&nbsp; Why?Now, imagine a second layer. You hit for 10 danage. The @11 has 200 hitpoints, the @1 has 1.&nbsp; Who do you attack now?That's my point -- choice matters.&nbsp; If you can choose, the @20 gets more from disadvantage.&nbsp; Frex, to get a 50% probability to kill the target in X attacks, a normal @11 needs to have 3x the hitpoints of an @20.&nbsp; Add in disadvantage and the @11 needs 398 times the hitpoints.&nbsp; If you can choose to put out an @20 disadvantage target or an @11 dusadvantage target, which will you choose?&nbsp; The @20 because the effective multiplier to hitpoints is staggeringly larger.That's the issue, really.&nbsp; You're confusing the base cases with tge disadvantage cases.&nbsp; You see that you lose half as much of a big number vs 200 times less of a smaller number and think that bigger is better.&nbsp; You've confused the fact that an 11 is worse than a 20 normally (you lose 10 times more hitpoints @11 than @20 normally) and think that the big differences are because of disadvantage when they're 10x off on the baseline.&nbsp; In reality, disadvantage halves the lose @11, and reduces it by a factor of 20 @20.&nbsp; So, which is the bigger effect?&nbsp; Reducing a number by 1/2 or 1/20?&nbsp;&nbsp; Clearly, it's 1/20.&nbsp; Disadvantage has the largest effect at 20.&nbsp; If you can choose which target number gets used with disadvantage, it's obvious you'd choose the 20.&nbsp; Hence my statements to that effect.&nbsp; If you want to say that the guy with a target to be hit of @11 will taje more damage than the gal with @20, you don't need disadvantage to tell you this. Disadvantage, by having the largest effect where you're already taking less damage, will not tell you differently -- it's still better to have a high AC with disadvantage than a low AC with disadvantage, just like it's normally better to have a high AC over a low one.If you're making holistic choices in encounters as to use of resources, then you're taking into account much more than largest effect.&nbsp; If you're baseline assumption that putting disadvantage on the low AC&nbsp; is better, you'll be disappointed by results a lot of the time.&nbsp; If you assumption is the high AC is best, you'll also be disappointed.&nbsp; Tactical choices must be made at the time.&nbsp; That doesn't impinge, though, on where disadvantage has the largest effect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7531123, member: 16814"] Okay, then, simple question: you have two targets. The first needs an 11 to hit, the second a 20. You have disadvantage on your attacks. Who do you attack? Why? Now, imagine a second layer. You hit for 10 danage. The @11 has 200 hitpoints, the @1 has 1. Who do you attack now? That's my point -- choice matters. If you can choose, the @20 gets more from disadvantage. Frex, to get a 50% probability to kill the target in X attacks, a normal @11 needs to have 3x the hitpoints of an @20. Add in disadvantage and the @11 needs 398 times the hitpoints. If you can choose to put out an @20 disadvantage target or an @11 dusadvantage target, which will you choose? The @20 because the effective multiplier to hitpoints is staggeringly larger. That's the issue, really. You're confusing the base cases with tge disadvantage cases. You see that you lose half as much of a big number vs 200 times less of a smaller number and think that bigger is better. You've confused the fact that an 11 is worse than a 20 normally (you lose 10 times more hitpoints @11 than @20 normally) and think that the big differences are because of disadvantage when they're 10x off on the baseline. In reality, disadvantage halves the lose @11, and reduces it by a factor of 20 @20. So, which is the bigger effect? Reducing a number by 1/2 or 1/20? Clearly, it's 1/20. Disadvantage has the largest effect at 20. If you can choose which target number gets used with disadvantage, it's obvious you'd choose the 20. Hence my statements to that effect. If you want to say that the guy with a target to be hit of @11 will taje more damage than the gal with @20, you don't need disadvantage to tell you this. Disadvantage, by having the largest effect where you're already taking less damage, will not tell you differently -- it's still better to have a high AC with disadvantage than a low AC with disadvantage, just like it's normally better to have a high AC over a low one. If you're making holistic choices in encounters as to use of resources, then you're taking into account much more than largest effect. If you're baseline assumption that putting disadvantage on the low AC is better, you'll be disappointed by results a lot of the time. If you assumption is the high AC is best, you'll also be disappointed. Tactical choices must be made at the time. That doesn't impinge, though, on where disadvantage has the largest effect. [/QUOTE]

Verification