Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TallIan" data-source="post: 7531357" data-attributes="member: 6853819">No I would choose to disadvantage the @11 because the actual HP I would likely loose is larger. I dont care about the multiplier, I care about the actual HPs lostAgain, my HPs are measured in absolute values NOT percentages or multipliers.&nbsp; Bigger IS better in this case, I don't care if I reduce 4 HPs to 1 I care that I reduce 60 HPs to 30.&nbsp; The loss if 3 HPs is insignificant, even though it is only 1/4 of what I could have lost, I could probably move straight into the next combat.&nbsp; The loss of 30 HPs is more significant, I will probably haave to spend healing potions or spells or take a short rest to get some of those 30 back before I can move onto the next combat.No it's not, if I had two opponents one requiring 20 to hit and one requiring 11 I would disadvantage the 11 to hit, because the 20 is so unlikely to hit anyway.I was trying to show you why the higher number or lost HPs at 11+ is more important the the higher ratio of lost HP at 20.&nbsp; HPs area resource like anything else, trading one resource for another (HPs for spell slots) is part of the management of the game.&nbsp; When is best to do one thing depends on when that thing saves you the most resources.&nbsp; The tactical choices to be made are dependent on when that choice is best and when it is worst, because when the choice offers the least value better tactics dictate a different choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TallIan, post: 7531357, member: 6853819"] No I would choose to disadvantage the @11 because the actual HP I would likely loose is larger. I dont care about the multiplier, I care about the actual HPs lost Again, my HPs are measured in absolute values NOT percentages or multipliers. Bigger IS better in this case, I don't care if I reduce 4 HPs to 1 I care that I reduce 60 HPs to 30. The loss if 3 HPs is insignificant, even though it is only 1/4 of what I could have lost, I could probably move straight into the next combat. The loss of 30 HPs is more significant, I will probably haave to spend healing potions or spells or take a short rest to get some of those 30 back before I can move onto the next combat. No it's not, if I had two opponents one requiring 20 to hit and one requiring 11 I would disadvantage the 11 to hit, because the 20 is so unlikely to hit anyway. I was trying to show you why the higher number or lost HPs at 11+ is more important the the higher ratio of lost HP at 20. HPs area resource like anything else, trading one resource for another (HPs for spell slots) is part of the management of the game. When is best to do one thing depends on when that thing saves you the most resources. The tactical choices to be made are dependent on when that choice is best and when it is worst, because when the choice offers the least value better tactics dictate a different choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification