The point being that you can have more damage *and* more accuracy, by combining advantage (for accuracy) with ways to leverage that more favorable probability curve into small decreases in some of the gained accuracy for a large damage bonus. If you need a 5 to hit, 80%, and you switch to having advantage, 96% to hit, you can take a -5 to hit *and still be at the 80% you started with*.
As far as RNG being "shit" or providing results other than the expected outcomes based on large sample sizes, I have not observed any evidence of this. Do me a favor, cast firebolt 100x at targets where it should do 2-20. Look in the combat log, and record each damage amount. Toss the results back, and we'll see what the average is. If it's 2.5 instead of 10.5 as expected, I'll do the same. If there's a legitimate issue with RNG let's find it and prove it so Larian can fix it. I've gotten results consistent with expectations though - if attacking at 65%, I'll hit twice for every time I miss. When using Firebolt I'll get an 8 on the die as often as I get a 2. But hey why take my word for it? Test it yourself, let us know how it goes.
That's exactly why all of his posts are against your vision here (your and other's) : all of his points are based on the idea that having 80% chance to hit is utterly bad because that means you'll miss most of the time because the RNG of this game is skewed. He may have had a bad string of miss one or two times (as we all do) and concluded that. He is purely playing with affect instead of maths.
Anyway, you should stop arguing, his posts are just full on toxic (especially on the bard post) and you are taking to much time to provide maths and full explanations to someone who doesn't want to hear it and won't change his mind whatsoever.
