Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7531225" data-attributes="member: 6919838">It wasn't a response to me but i will answer you question as it shows exactly the point...&quot;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?&quot; The answer is if my goal is doing damage and doing the most damage, &quot;i will attack the guy where i need the 11 - and the key bit is **that is the exact same answer it would be if roll was with advantage, normal or with disadvantage. Quite literally, the &quot;disadvantage&quot; on the 20 makes zero difference - it is meaningless - it is so trivial that the better move is to attack the guy with the 11. So, the disadvantage on the 20 guy is pointless - he would not be my target of choice. The disadvantage on the 11 guy, that will play a role since it will stop some hits and save some damage and save enough to outweigh the 20 guy. Second part...&quot;Now, imagine a second layer. You hit for 10 damage. The @11 has 200 hitpoints, the @1 has 1.&nbsp; Who do you attack now?&quot;Even with the dramatic shift if the stakes between them you throw in to make your case sound tempting, the answer is the same. Not gonna win on a 1 in 400 chance either way as a part of the strategy. So its better for me to go after the one in four guy for damage and let someone else deal with the 20 guy thru a save effect or something like a grapple or restrain. Key being is this - the change in the results is not by the &quot;increase in % of a hit&quot; if shots are not being taken against them. if 19 out of 20 hits miss thats already so far moved into &quot;dont bother - use different option&quot; land that the disad is pointless. if 10 out of 20 hit, then shifting that to 5 out of 20 hit is well worth it. It comes back to do you want to &quot;spend an action&quot; to stop a little less than one attack in 20 or do you want to spend your atteack to stop about 5 more attacks in 20?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7531225, member: 6919838"] It wasn't a response to me but i will answer you question as it shows exactly the point... "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?" The answer is if my goal is doing damage and doing the most damage, "i will attack the guy where i need the 11 - and the key bit is **that is the exact same answer it would be if roll was with advantage, normal or with disadvantage. Quite literally, the "disadvantage" on the 20 makes zero difference - it is meaningless - it is so trivial that the better move is to attack the guy with the 11. So, the disadvantage on the 20 guy is pointless - he would not be my target of choice. The disadvantage on the 11 guy, that will play a role since it will stop some hits and save some damage and save enough to outweigh the 20 guy. Second part... "Now, imagine a second layer. You hit for 10 damage. The @11 has 200 hitpoints, the @1 has 1. Who do you attack now?" Even with the dramatic shift if the stakes between them you throw in to make your case sound tempting, the answer is the same. Not gonna win on a 1 in 400 chance either way as a part of the strategy. So its better for me to go after the one in four guy for damage and let someone else deal with the 20 guy thru a save effect or something like a grapple or restrain. Key being is this - the change in the results is not by the "increase in % of a hit" if shots are not being taken against them. if 19 out of 20 hits miss thats already so far moved into "dont bother - use different option" land that the disad is pointless. if 10 out of 20 hit, then shifting that to 5 out of 20 hit is well worth it. It comes back to do you want to "spend an action" to stop a little less than one attack in 20 or do you want to spend your atteack to stop about 5 more attacks in 20? [/QUOTE]

Verification