Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7531407" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm thinking you might have misunderstood the question because your answer doesn't make sense.&nbsp; You're 100 times more likely to be hit @11 than @20 (100/400 / 1/400 = 100) meaning you will lose 100 times the hitpoints.&nbsp; Sure, you'll &quot;save&quot; (1/2 / 1/20) 10 times the number of hitpoints by not being hit than @20 (because @20 normal is hit less anyway), but you'll still lose 100 times as many hitpoints.If you only focus on hp &quot;saved&quot; while ignoring that you're still losing hitpoints at a rate 100 times faster, you're going to have the wrong view of things.Um, no.&nbsp; I will lose more hitpoints @11 with disadvantage than I will @20 with disadvantage (or without, for that matter).&nbsp; You've confused the biggest delta for the biggest effect.&nbsp; @20 disad almost eliminates hitpoint loss.&nbsp; It is massively more efficient at preserving hitpoints than disadvantage @11.Yes.&nbsp; Now, think on that and realize that it's the fundamental answer -- @20 is better at preventing damage than @11.&nbsp; So much so that you're obviously inclined to avoid hard to hit targets in favor of easier to hit targets, regardless of the hp &quot;saved&quot; in that equation.Let's test this idea.&nbsp; I have 100 hitpoints.&nbsp; @11, I get hit 1/2 the time for, let's say, 10 hitpoints a whack.&nbsp;&nbsp; In 20 attacks, I'm likely to be hit 10 times, losing all my hitpoints.&nbsp; If I get disadvantage, I'll only be hit 5 times, &quot;saving&quot; 50 hitpoints!&nbsp; Aweomse!&nbsp; (and this is awesome, it's a good thing)Now, if I'm the same but @20, I'll get hit once for 10 hitpoints.&nbsp; If I have disadvantage, the vast likelihood is that I'll not be hit at all, thereby saving all 100 of my hitpoints.@11 I'm still losing 50 hitpoints.&nbsp; @20, I'm losing no hitpoints.&nbsp; The argument that disadvantage &quot;saves&quot; 50 hitpoints and that makes it better than the 10 @20 is fatuous and like saying that going out and buying something on sale is somehow &quot;saving&quot; money.&nbsp; You're still spending, just at a lower rate.&nbsp; And the difference between @11 is like getting a 50% off coupon vs @20 being a 99.9975% off coupon and saying that you're &quot;saving&quot; more with the 50% off coupon.There are still many, many times where it makes sense to apply disadvantage to a lower target number versus a higher one, but that's contextual, not baseline.&nbsp; Fundamentally, disadvantage has the largest effect at 20, although you may get more use out of it elsewhere in actual play because many other factors obtain.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7531407, member: 16814"] I'm thinking you might have misunderstood the question because your answer doesn't make sense. You're 100 times more likely to be hit @11 than @20 (100/400 / 1/400 = 100) meaning you will lose 100 times the hitpoints. Sure, you'll "save" (1/2 / 1/20) 10 times the number of hitpoints by not being hit than @20 (because @20 normal is hit less anyway), but you'll still [I]lose [/I]100 times as many hitpoints. If you only focus on hp "saved" while ignoring that you're still losing hitpoints at a rate 100 times faster, you're going to have the wrong view of things. Um, no. I will lose more hitpoints @11 with disadvantage than I will @20 with disadvantage (or without, for that matter). You've confused the biggest delta for the biggest effect. @20 disad almost eliminates hitpoint loss. It is massively more efficient at preserving hitpoints than disadvantage @11. Yes. Now, think on that and realize that it's the fundamental answer -- @20 is better at preventing damage than @11. So much so that you're obviously inclined to avoid hard to hit targets in favor of easier to hit targets, regardless of the hp "saved" in that equation. Let's test this idea. I have 100 hitpoints. @11, I get hit 1/2 the time for, let's say, 10 hitpoints a whack. In 20 attacks, I'm likely to be hit 10 times, losing all my hitpoints. If I get disadvantage, I'll only be hit 5 times, "saving" 50 hitpoints! Aweomse! (and this is awesome, it's a good thing) Now, if I'm the same but @20, I'll get hit once for 10 hitpoints. If I have disadvantage, the vast likelihood is that I'll not be hit at all, thereby saving [I]all 100 of my hitpoints[/I]. @11 I'm still losing 50 hitpoints. @20, I'm losing [I]no hitpoints.[/I] The argument that disadvantage "saves" 50 hitpoints and that makes it better than the 10 @20 is fatuous and like saying that going out and buying something on sale is somehow "saving" money. You're still [I]spending[/I], just at a lower rate. And the difference between @11 is like getting a 50% off coupon vs @20 being a 99.9975% off coupon and saying that you're "saving" more with the 50% off coupon. There are still many, many times where it makes sense to apply disadvantage to a lower target number versus a higher one, but that's contextual, not baseline. Fundamentally, disadvantage has the largest effect at 20, although you may get more use out of it elsewhere in actual play because many other factors obtain. [/QUOTE]

Verification