My question is would it be better to hit 8 out of 10 times for small damage sixes and Eights or would it be better to hit 4 out of 10 times for 19 and 20 s and damage what do people think? I have a barbarian that when he hits you you're going to notice he's got a great Axe with a plus 5 to hit I've also got a Gloom stalker artificer Battlemaster he hits you with a hand crossbow but he hits you 8 out of 10 times and he's got a plus 8 to hit both characters are completely legally made their both Point by and they both use only two books ever on the last war and players handbook for the Gloom stalker and ever on the last war and player's handbook for the Barbarian
It will depend on the exact numbers since your examples don't match each other, but in general, if the overall dps is the same, lots of little hits is better than a few large hits.
Well, the average for the first example comes out to 56 damage (8 hits times 7 avg.damage). While the second example comes out to 78 damage (4 hits times 19.5 avg.damage). So, the latter, assuming there are no other factors you are considering besides damage output.
But how many combats do you have that go a full 10 rounds? Supposing the combat only goes 5 rounds then the gap lessens as an average. But also, the fewer opportunities that come about, the better the 8/10 is going to be since it's so much more reliable.
The longer the encounter, the more that gap will grow. The shorter the encounter, the more it will favor the more reliable hit rate.
It will depend on the exact numbers since your examples don't match each other, but in general, if the overall dps is the same, lots of little hits is better than a few large hits.
But don't you always want the Heavy Hitters I mean the Heavy Hitters do more damage my artificer Ranger Gloom stalker has a hand crossbow that does a d 6 + 4 my Barbarian has a great Axe it does a lot more damage when he strikes it then when the artifice or hits almost every time like I said we are in Fraser can hit 8 or nine times out of 10 the Barbarian can only hit four or five times out of 10
The Barbarian is all Brawn and no brain he's a Minotaur Barbarian with a greataxe and he's got the totem of the bear where is my Bloom stalker Ranger/artificer Battlemaster is a mark of the Shadow dark elf with a hand crossbow that does a D6 Plus for with a damaged he's got or he's going to be getting crossbow master and alert Feats once he gets to that point where he has feets
No attack has perfect accuracy, and the more times one can deal their modifier in a turn, the better their damage will be.
Damage dice are swingy. A d12 can roll very high, or it can roll a 1. Your attack modifier is static and reliable. Dealing 1d6+4 is roughly equivalent, on average, to dealing 1d6+1d8. 1d6+5 is roughly equivalent to 1d6+1d10 - in many cases the static damage modifier is more important than the actual die roll. Every time you can hit in a round, that guaranteed damage adds up.
More attacks also means less damage lost to a miss. If you can attack once for 20 damage, all of that damage disappears on a miss; attacking three times for a total of fifteen damage is less damage, but if you miss one of the hits you still have a chance to land your remaining ten.
Numerous smaller attacks also take better advantage of on-hit buffs such as Hunter's Mark, which grants bonus damage per hit. Three hits is 3d6 bonus Hunter's Mark damage, a single 1d12 hit would only gain 1d6 bonus damage.
There's a reason hand crossbow specialist builds are often considered abusive and borderline overpowered once one has all the feats.
No attack has perfect accuracy, and the more times one can deal their modifier in a turn, the better their damage will be.
Damage dice are swingy. A d12 can roll very high, or it can roll a 1. Your attack modifier is static and reliable. Dealing 1d6+4 is roughly equivalent, on average, to dealing 1d6+1d8. 1d6+5 is roughly equivalent to 1d6+1d10 - in many cases the static damage modifier is more important than the actual die roll. Every time you can hit in a round, that guaranteed damage adds up.
More attacks also means less damage lost to a miss. If you can attack once for 20 damage, all of that damage disappears on a miss; attacking three times for a total of fifteen damage is less damage, but if you miss one of the hits you still have a chance to land your remaining ten.
Numerous smaller attacks also take better advantage of on-hit buffs such as Hunter's Mark, which grants bonus damage per hit. Three hits is 3d6 bonus Hunter's Mark damage, a single 1d12 hit would only gain 1d6 bonus damage.
There's a reason hand crossbow specialist builds are often considered abusive and borderline overpowered once one has all the feats.
I disagree with some of your conclusions.
Dealing 1d6+4 is not roughly equivalent to 1d6+1d8. For one, the standard deviation for the former is much lower than the latter. But this also means you don't get to double all of your dice rolls on a critical hit either with the former. To give you a breakdown, if you consider you need an 8 or higher to hit, here's how they figure:
Scenario A: 1d6+4.5 (the identical comparison) = 8 average damage on a normal hit, 11.5 average damage on a critical hit. 35% of the time you will do 0 damage, 60% of the time you will do 8 damage, and 5% of the time you will do 11.5 damage. This means your actual average is 0.6*8 + 0.05*11.5 = 5.375 average per hit.
Scenario B: 1d6+1d8 = 8 average damage on a normal hit, 16 average damage on a critical hit. 0.6*8 + 0.05*16 = 5.6 average per hit.
That's over 5% more damage per attack on average (which is quite high when we're talking about actual net damage). Furthermore, the standard deviation on A is much narrower than B. There's no chance of rolling lower than a 5 or higher than a 10 in A, but you could roll a 2 or 14 in B. With critical hits, the highest you can roll in A is 16.5. With B, the highest you can roll on a critical hit is 28.
More attacks doesn't necessarily mean "less damage lost to a miss", it again just means your damage is spread out and therefore again, has a lower standard deviation. If you compare 3d6 for one attack vs. 1d6 for 3 attacks:
Scenario A: 1d6 3 times = 3.5 per attack, at 60% chance of normal damage and 5% chance of critical damage. (0.6*3.5 + 0.05*7)*3 = 7.35 damage average per round.
Scenario B: 3d6 1 time = 10.5 per attack. 0.6*10.5 + 0.05*21 = 7.35 damage average per round.
Exactly the same in each instance, again the only difference coming from the likelihood of doing maximum/minimum damage being higher in scenario B.
I do agree with some abilities definitely having a benefit for multiple attacks - specifically, Hunter's Mark scales with number of attacks, Smites scale with number of attacks and likelihood of rolling a critical hits which can lead to very large numbers, etc. I only disagree with the idea that straight bonuses are in any way superior to additional dice, especially when those straight bonuses never get multiplied with critical hits.
It will depend on the exact numbers since your examples don't match each other, but in general, if the overall dps is the same, lots of little hits is better than a few large hits.
But don't you always want the Heavy Hitters I mean the Heavy Hitters do more damage my artificer Ranger Gloom stalker has a hand crossbow that does a d 6 + 4 my Barbarian has a great Axe it does a lot more damage when he strikes it then when the artifice or hits almost every time like I said we are in Fraser can hit 8 or nine times out of 10 the Barbarian can only hit four or five times out of 10
If the barbarian is hitting half as often but for more than twice the damage like in your initial setup, then they will do more damage. However, if the artificer manages to do half as much damage per hit and hits twice as often, that's better than the barbarian because less damage will be wasted on killing blows. If they fight mobs with a different AC, their relative hit rate will change, which will also change the balance between them as when the artificer hits 6/10 the barbarian will only hit 2/10.
Generally, the better hit chance is better, but you’ll find there are situations where the high damage can cost an enemy a round or two of attacks, which in tough boss fights can seriously save the party’s bacon...especially when crits are involved. Plus, the high hit chance will be far better against high AC foes like animated armor, and almost irrelevant against low AC foes like zombies. So both are better in different instances, neither is strictly superior.
Here he is i will share my PC so that you can see he hits like all the time and would have advantage most of the time as long as there is darkness or i could get my steal defender with in 5 feet so i would be rolling with advantage most all the time but let me show you.
Yes I would prefer a smaller damage and a higher attack. Who know, you might get lucky and deal 10dCRAZY insane damage. Now (I digress), if you had a Paladin that had that kind of hit bonus (the 8 out of 10), then you could REALLY pour on the pain
No attack has perfect accuracy, and the more times one can deal their modifier in a turn, the better their damage will be.
Damage dice are swingy. A d12 can roll very high, or it can roll a 1. Your attack modifier is static and reliable. Dealing 1d6+4 is roughly equivalent, on average, to dealing 1d6+1d8. 1d6+5 is roughly equivalent to 1d6+1d10 - in many cases the static damage modifier is more important than the actual die roll. Every time you can hit in a round, that guaranteed damage adds up.
More attacks also means less damage lost to a miss. If you can attack once for 20 damage, all of that damage disappears on a miss; attacking three times for a total of fifteen damage is less damage, but if you miss one of the hits you still have a chance to land your remaining ten.
Numerous smaller attacks also take better advantage of on-hit buffs such as Hunter's Mark, which grants bonus damage per hit. Three hits is 3d6 bonus Hunter's Mark damage, a single 1d12 hit would only gain 1d6 bonus damage.
There's a reason hand crossbow specialist builds are often considered abusive and borderline overpowered once one has all the feats.
I disagree with some of your conclusions.
Dealing 1d6+4 is not roughly equivalent to 1d6+1d8. For one, the standard deviation for the former is much lower than the latter. But this also means you don't get to double all of your dice rolls on a critical hit either with the former. To give you a breakdown, if you consider you need an 8 or higher to hit, here's how they figure:
Scenario A: 1d6+4.5 (the identical comparison) = 8 average damage on a normal hit, 11.5 average damage on a critical hit. 35% of the time you will do 0 damage, 60% of the time you will do 8 damage, and 5% of the time you will do 11.5 damage. This means your actual average is 0.6*8 + 0.05*11.5 = 5.375 average per hit.
Scenario B: 1d6+1d8 = 8 average damage on a normal hit, 16 average damage on a critical hit. 0.6*8 + 0.05*16 = 5.6 average per hit.
That's over 5% more damage per attack on average (which is quite high when we're talking about actual net damage). Furthermore, the standard deviation on A is much narrower than B. There's no chance of rolling lower than a 5 or higher than a 10 in A, but you could roll a 2 or 14 in B. With critical hits, the highest you can roll in A is 16.5. With B, the highest you can roll on a critical hit is 28.
More attacks doesn't necessarily mean "less damage lost to a miss", it again just means your damage is spread out and therefore again, has a lower standard deviation. If you compare 3d6 for one attack vs. 1d6 for 3 attacks:
Scenario A: 1d6 3 times = 3.5 per attack, at 60% chance of normal damage and 5% chance of critical damage. (0.6*3.5 + 0.05*7)*3 = 7.35 damage average per round.
Scenario B: 3d6 1 time = 10.5 per attack. 0.6*10.5 + 0.05*21 = 7.35 damage average per round.
Exactly the same in each instance, again the only difference coming from the likelihood of doing maximum/minimum damage being higher in scenario B.
I do agree with some abilities definitely having a benefit for multiple attacks - specifically, Hunter's Mark scales with number of attacks, Smites scale with number of attacks and likelihood of rolling a critical hits which can lead to very large numbers, etc. I only disagree with the idea that straight bonuses are in any way superior to additional dice, especially when those straight bonuses never get multiplied with critical hits.
To counter Brewsy, the math may work out the way he's saying it will, I would prefer 4 over 1d8 if only for reliability. I would, however, take the gamble with high dice numbers (as in at least 3 or 4), because you should get pretty close to the average when all is cut and dried
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rogue Shadow, the DM (and occasional) PC with schemes of inventive thinking
the Barbarian can only hit four or five times out of 10
People have referred to it but no one has said it by name, so I just want to point out that the Barbarian can use Reckless Attack to have advantage all the time. No barbarian should be missing that much unless AC is really high.
I'm not sure how you think you're getting advantage all the time with your Ranger/Artificer, but it doesn't sound right. Your steel defender can use the Help action, but it goes after you and a lot is going to happen before you go again. Not sure what you mean by darkness either, but remember your party needs to see too and sometimes you're fighting in an open field under a clear sky.
If we're talking smaller hits vs bigger hits for equal average damage, I'd agree with most others here that smaller is better for the reasons already given. One thing I'd add is breaking concentration - several small hits require multiple concentration saves which is probably better against lesser/lower level enemies. But at higher levels it can be useful to land a big hit with a higher concentration DC as some things have no trouble hitting a save of 10 unless they roll a 1.
My question is would it be better to hit 8 out of 10 times for small damage sixes and Eights or would it be better to hit 4 out of 10 times for 19 and 20 s and damage what do people think? I have a barbarian that when he hits you you're going to notice he's got a great Axe with a plus 5 to hit I've also got a Gloom stalker artificer Battlemaster he hits you with a hand crossbow but he hits you 8 out of 10 times and he's got a plus 8 to hit both characters are completely legally made their both Point by and they both use only two books ever on the last war and players handbook for the Gloom stalker and ever on the last war and player's handbook for the Barbarian
It will depend on the exact numbers since your examples don't match each other, but in general, if the overall dps is the same, lots of little hits is better than a few large hits.
Well, the average for the first example comes out to 56 damage (8 hits times 7 avg.damage). While the second example comes out to 78 damage (4 hits times 19.5 avg.damage). So, the latter, assuming there are no other factors you are considering besides damage output.
But how many combats do you have that go a full 10 rounds? Supposing the combat only goes 5 rounds then the gap lessens as an average. But also, the fewer opportunities that come about, the better the 8/10 is going to be since it's so much more reliable.
The longer the encounter, the more that gap will grow. The shorter the encounter, the more it will favor the more reliable hit rate.
But don't you always want the Heavy Hitters I mean the Heavy Hitters do more damage my artificer Ranger Gloom stalker has a hand crossbow that does a d 6 + 4 my Barbarian has a great Axe it does a lot more damage when he strikes it then when the artifice or hits almost every time like I said we are in Fraser can hit 8 or nine times out of 10 the Barbarian can only hit four or five times out of 10
The Barbarian is all Brawn and no brain he's a Minotaur Barbarian with a greataxe and he's got the totem of the bear where is my Bloom stalker Ranger/artificer Battlemaster is a mark of the Shadow dark elf with a hand crossbow that does a D6 Plus for with a damaged he's got or he's going to be getting crossbow master and alert Feats once he gets to that point where he has feets
No attack has perfect accuracy, and the more times one can deal their modifier in a turn, the better their damage will be.
Damage dice are swingy. A d12 can roll very high, or it can roll a 1. Your attack modifier is static and reliable. Dealing 1d6+4 is roughly equivalent, on average, to dealing 1d6+1d8. 1d6+5 is roughly equivalent to 1d6+1d10 - in many cases the static damage modifier is more important than the actual die roll. Every time you can hit in a round, that guaranteed damage adds up.
More attacks also means less damage lost to a miss. If you can attack once for 20 damage, all of that damage disappears on a miss; attacking three times for a total of fifteen damage is less damage, but if you miss one of the hits you still have a chance to land your remaining ten.
Numerous smaller attacks also take better advantage of on-hit buffs such as Hunter's Mark, which grants bonus damage per hit. Three hits is 3d6 bonus Hunter's Mark damage, a single 1d12 hit would only gain 1d6 bonus damage.
There's a reason hand crossbow specialist builds are often considered abusive and borderline overpowered once one has all the feats.
Please do not contact or message me.
I disagree with some of your conclusions.
Dealing 1d6+4 is not roughly equivalent to 1d6+1d8. For one, the standard deviation for the former is much lower than the latter. But this also means you don't get to double all of your dice rolls on a critical hit either with the former. To give you a breakdown, if you consider you need an 8 or higher to hit, here's how they figure:
Scenario A: 1d6+4.5 (the identical comparison) = 8 average damage on a normal hit, 11.5 average damage on a critical hit. 35% of the time you will do 0 damage, 60% of the time you will do 8 damage, and 5% of the time you will do 11.5 damage. This means your actual average is 0.6*8 + 0.05*11.5 = 5.375 average per hit.
Scenario B: 1d6+1d8 = 8 average damage on a normal hit, 16 average damage on a critical hit. 0.6*8 + 0.05*16 = 5.6 average per hit.
That's over 5% more damage per attack on average (which is quite high when we're talking about actual net damage). Furthermore, the standard deviation on A is much narrower than B. There's no chance of rolling lower than a 5 or higher than a 10 in A, but you could roll a 2 or 14 in B. With critical hits, the highest you can roll in A is 16.5. With B, the highest you can roll on a critical hit is 28.
More attacks doesn't necessarily mean "less damage lost to a miss", it again just means your damage is spread out and therefore again, has a lower standard deviation. If you compare 3d6 for one attack vs. 1d6 for 3 attacks:
Scenario A: 1d6 3 times = 3.5 per attack, at 60% chance of normal damage and 5% chance of critical damage. (0.6*3.5 + 0.05*7)*3 = 7.35 damage average per round.
Scenario B: 3d6 1 time = 10.5 per attack. 0.6*10.5 + 0.05*21 = 7.35 damage average per round.
Exactly the same in each instance, again the only difference coming from the likelihood of doing maximum/minimum damage being higher in scenario B.
I do agree with some abilities definitely having a benefit for multiple attacks - specifically, Hunter's Mark scales with number of attacks, Smites scale with number of attacks and likelihood of rolling a critical hits which can lead to very large numbers, etc. I only disagree with the idea that straight bonuses are in any way superior to additional dice, especially when those straight bonuses never get multiplied with critical hits.
If the barbarian is hitting half as often but for more than twice the damage like in your initial setup, then they will do more damage. However, if the artificer manages to do half as much damage per hit and hits twice as often, that's better than the barbarian because less damage will be wasted on killing blows. If they fight mobs with a different AC, their relative hit rate will change, which will also change the balance between them as when the artificer hits 6/10 the barbarian will only hit 2/10.
Generally, the better hit chance is better, but you’ll find there are situations where the high damage can cost an enemy a round or two of attacks, which in tough boss fights can seriously save the party’s bacon...especially when crits are involved. Plus, the high hit chance will be far better against high AC foes like animated armor, and almost irrelevant against low AC foes like zombies. So both are better in different instances, neither is strictly superior.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Here he is i will share my PC so that you can see he hits like all the time and would have advantage most of the time as long as there is darkness or i could get my steal defender with in 5 feet so i would be rolling with advantage most all the time but let me show you.
https://ddb.ac/characters/37444689/M82MFD
I'm more interested in the barbarian who should have a magical weapon by level 6 and who attacks with advantage at will.
Yes I would prefer a smaller damage and a higher attack. Who know, you might get lucky and deal 10dCRAZY insane damage. Now (I digress), if you had a Paladin that had that kind of hit bonus (the 8 out of 10), then you could REALLY pour on the pain
To counter Brewsy, the math may work out the way he's saying it will, I would prefer 4 over 1d8 if only for reliability. I would, however, take the gamble with high dice numbers (as in at least 3 or 4), because you should get pretty close to the average when all is cut and dried
Rogue Shadow, the DM (and occasional) PC with schemes of inventive thinking
It doesn't matter how much damage you can theoretically inflict if you can't hit your target.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
People have referred to it but no one has said it by name, so I just want to point out that the Barbarian can use Reckless Attack to have advantage all the time. No barbarian should be missing that much unless AC is really high.
I'm not sure how you think you're getting advantage all the time with your Ranger/Artificer, but it doesn't sound right. Your steel defender can use the Help action, but it goes after you and a lot is going to happen before you go again. Not sure what you mean by darkness either, but remember your party needs to see too and sometimes you're fighting in an open field under a clear sky.
If we're talking smaller hits vs bigger hits for equal average damage, I'd agree with most others here that smaller is better for the reasons already given. One thing I'd add is breaking concentration - several small hits require multiple concentration saves which is probably better against lesser/lower level enemies. But at higher levels it can be useful to land a big hit with a higher concentration DC as some things have no trouble hitting a save of 10 unless they roll a 1.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm