Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7531373" data-attributes="member: 16814">So, disadvantage in this case has no effect on your decision making at all.&nbsp; That cuts both ways, though.&nbsp; Having a 20 target number is already a big enough effect that it doesn't matter if you have disadvantage or not on the 11.&nbsp; Disadvantage on the 20 jut makes it even worse of an option (20 times worse, actually).So, then, what would you say to attacking a target needing an 11 with disadvantage vs needing a 12?&nbsp; Which would you pick?&nbsp; According to you, the 11 is the largest effect with 12 slightly smaller, so you should pick the 12, right?&nbsp; No, clearly not.Right, as I said, you're making tactical claims based on adding more information rather than looking at disadvantage alone to make your claims.&nbsp; Disadvantage has it's largest effect at 20, but that doesn't mean that the largest tactical effect in any given situation with a host of other options and conditions wouldn't favor a different choice (and it could often do so).&nbsp; This doesn't change the fact that the effect of disadvantage is largest at 20 ceteris paribus.As I noted above, the LD50 point for @20disad with 10 hitpoints is 277 attacks.&nbsp; LD50 for @11disad with 200 hitpoints is 78 attacks.&nbsp; Even giving @11 the advantage of 20x hitpoints, the average time to death is almost 1/4 that of @20.&nbsp; Yet you persist in claiming that the effect of disadvantage is maximized at 11 even though you still know that attacking the @11 is the best strategy even with a 20x hitpoint advantage.&nbsp; You acknowledge this in the examples above, but still say that the impact is larger at 11 despite choosing otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7531373, member: 16814"] So, disadvantage in this case has no effect on your decision making at all. That cuts both ways, though. Having a 20 target number is already a big enough effect that it doesn't matter if you have disadvantage or not on the 11. Disadvantage on the 20 jut makes it even worse of an option (20 times worse, actually). So, then, what would you say to attacking a target needing an 11 with disadvantage vs needing a 12? Which would you pick? According to you, the 11 is the largest effect with 12 slightly smaller, so you should pick the 12, right? No, clearly not. Right, as I said, you're making tactical claims based on adding more information rather than looking at disadvantage alone to make your claims. Disadvantage has it's largest effect at 20, but that doesn't mean that the largest tactical effect in any given situation with a host of other options and conditions wouldn't favor a different choice (and it could often do so). This doesn't change the fact that the effect of disadvantage is largest at 20 ceteris paribus. As I noted above, the LD50 point for @20disad with 10 hitpoints is 277 attacks. LD50 for @11disad with 200 hitpoints is 78 attacks. Even giving @11 the advantage of 20x hitpoints, the average time to death is almost 1/4 that of @20. Yet you persist in claiming that the effect of disadvantage is maximized at 11 even though you still know that attacking the @11 is the best strategy even with a 20x hitpoint advantage. You acknowledge this in the examples above, but still say that the impact is larger at 11 despite choosing otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification