|
Post by kaezar on Apr 14, 2010 19:55:01 GMT
After funky re-published the table, I gave it a through look, since I thought it was one of those things that fell by the wayside.
I did a spreadsheet to canculate number or attacks against a given AC and it showed gains in hits over time a bit different from the values given on the sheet for them. I used as a base a BAB 1/1, AC 93 and AB 96, with a curse of 7 applied to AC.
One point of clarification, I include haste in what I call "normal attacks". When I tell of "extra attacks" I'm talking about extra scripted attacks, like those from Tenser, that come *after* haste.
In general, if you consider large numbers of rounds, I found that the number of hits increases to about 140% and 120% for iterations 3 and 4 respectively. If the characters have scripted attacks, this drops still more.
For iterations 6 and 7, the drops in hits is to about 97% and 80%. Iteration 7 is heavily influenced by the number of extra attacks, to the point the chance of hits goes up to 85% with 2 extra attacks.
Another point that worries me is the change to damage for dual wielders using weapons smaller than themselves. The secondary weapon damage is already 1/2 str, now it will go to affect the primary weapon too, at least. That if the secondary weapon str damage doesn't go to 1/4.
Depending on the proportion of physical damage to elemental and exotic damage on a critter, the character may end up paying 3 feats to *reduce* his damage total.
I'm not sure what's the purpose of that change, but exclusive of humorous results* I think a good hard look at its consequence is warranted.
Take care Kaezar
* all weapon user strength monks become small sized - all hail the elephant tieing stakes.
* large dual wielders become things of the past, unless they use spears or tridents - the age of toothpick is come!
|
|
|
Post by gandoron on Apr 14, 2010 20:06:10 GMT
Kaezar, I have done some similiar calculations. You can't include haste as a regular attack because it happens at the very highest AB (higher than the first primary hand attack for dual/double wielders), then bonus attacks go down at a -5 progression.
it is interesting the dropping a shield and picking up a dual weapon offhand will actually reduce your damage output by about ~ -17% in many cases, in situations where the AB is -10 from the AC. This is due to the -4ab drop on prim and offhand attacks, this does not affect bonus attacks however (tested thoroughly).
-G
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 14, 2010 20:48:59 GMT
Funky, Did you mean size 5 weapons? all double weapons, dire mace, double axe, etc are all size 4 weapons (or at least on the Critical sheet they are). -G I assumed you meant Huge weapons, which are size 5. Obvious, really, since meds CAN weild Large weapons, though I should've realized you meant large from your question. The answer then is no, large creatures don't get the 1.5, because they're using it one-handed. Similar to how a medium pc using a kukri wouldn't get a 1.5. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 14, 2010 21:11:24 GMT
Another point that worries me... What was the first point that worried you? That seems like a nonsensical concern. Losing half a strength bonus for a dualer is typically going to mean 3 or 4 points of damage per hit on a dexer, maybe 8 on a dualer like my 44 str uni bard. We agree, which is why we took one, spending days on it. Using 93 ac as a basis for iterations is completely unrealistic, because it uses the abyss median ac (we used hells in one run (abyss wasn't around), at 4 lower, and abyss creatures have lowered immunes to offset the ac gain), and because it completely ignores curse song. Drop the ac, rerun your calcs, and you should get a rough idea where our numbers came from. Or, if you were referring only to the 1.5, PnP is the answer. Funky
|
|
|
Post by nataani on Apr 14, 2010 21:35:54 GMT
On a related note, the spreadsheet says two handed weapons will receive x1.5 str to all damage. Does this include 1. unresistable damage (divine might, mighty rage, bard song,...) 2. weapon buffs (FW, thundering rage, shadow rift,...) 3. mega-damage weapons (uro, sissy, abo, abyss,...)? simpetar 1. No 2. No 3. No The 1.5x only applies to str bonus damage. Currently a toon with a 10 str mod would get +10 damage on char sheet with a weapon of equal size to the toon. If you equip a weapon one size larger, it will increase to +15. If you equip a weapon one size smaller it will decrease to +5. This is why some high ab dual wielders choose to dual wield medium weapons at a -4 ab penalty rather than -2 with lighter weapons.
|
|
|
Post by MightyKhan on Apr 14, 2010 21:53:45 GMT
thats currently. this will be changed to encompass not only the damage you receive from strength, but also the elemental and exotic damage types on the weapon. hence simp was wondering whether this also included those 3 he mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by gandoron on Apr 14, 2010 22:19:35 GMT
Also all the large Martial weapons get owned by those changes. All 3 get reduced significantly. -G They got the 1.5 damage as an offset, remember. Funky Ok so that's my main point. If Size 4 (one-hand for a Large race) weapons are nerfed, then a large race with size 4 doesn't have much advantage over a med race with size 3 weapon. Which is believe was a fundamental design of the initial weapon crit range/multi. Large subs do have access to size 5 weapons for dual wielding, but I'm having a hard time figuring out feasible no-shield builds that work in the abyss. (CoT, div shield, high dex, monk ac, etc are all options). -G
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Apr 14, 2010 23:55:14 GMT
Another point that worries me... What was the first point that worried you? First point was the iteration values given. Not big worries, but it seems you over-valuing slightly the lower iterations. And iteration 6 seems to be over-valued as a disadvantage (that is, it doesn't disadvantages as much as the table indicates it does). While iteration 7 is over-valued only if the character gets extra attacks, like battleclerics and staffmasters. [ That seems like a nonsensical concern. Losing half a strength bonus for a dualer is typically going to mean 3 or 4 points of damage per hit on a dexer, maybe 8 on a dualer like my 44 str uni bard. We agree, which is why we took one, spending days on it. Using 93 ac as a basis for iterations is completely unrealistic, because it uses the abyss median ac (we used hells in one run (abyss wasn't around), at 4 lower, and abyss creatures have lowered immunes to offset the ac gain), and because it completely ignores curse song. Drop the ac, rerun your calcs, and you should get a rough idea where our numbers came from. Or, if you were referring only to the 1.5, PnP is the answer. Funky There seems to be a confusion about the 2 points I wrote about. I was probably tripped up by my english, even if I can't figure out how. My first worry was the iteration values. Another, completely exclusive of the first, was the 1/2 str mod to dual wielders using weapons smaller their size. You made a point about the AC/AB I assumed. Well, inputing the new AC you cited (89, right?), this is the result you get Iteration 3, 140%, Iteration 4, 120%, Iteration 6, 97.89% and iteration 7, 80% Nothing seem to have changed? Yeah, that's right. When I used the other ac I rounded the numbers slightly. Iterations 3 was 141.3%, 4 was 119.57%, 6 was 96.7%, 80.43% About the curse, well. I used as a base a BAB 1/1, AC 93 and AB 96, with a curse of 7 applied to AC. Now, somethings may change more if I assume different values of bab by level 20 than the 20 I assumed. I can put it on if you want. Now enterely exclusive of the iteration issue, is the 1/2 strength mod to dual wielders using weapons smaller than themselves. And no, it is not as absurd as you make it seem, although it is an extreme case, if you halve again the strength mod on the offhand weapon. The point is more salient for strength dual wielders. Remember dual wielding only wields 2 extra attacks, against the 5 a character already has. So if a strength dual wielder with a str of, say, 58, is losing 12 points of damage on each attack it scores. A decent tank will score with all attacks, but for conceal (in hell, still haven't enough data to know about abyss). So he'll be losing 60 damage. He gains for that, 6 strength + weapon damage on the secondary attacks. total 12 + 2*weapon damage. So if weapon damage is 24 or less, the damage will go *down*. Now 24 is not a great weapon damage, but not "absurd" either. Even if the offhand attacks remains at 1/2 strength mod, a damage of 18 or less still implies in a reductin of damage. Notice I didn't even touch the reduction in hit chance the -2 to ab gives. As for conceal, whatever the loss on hits you get on your main attacks, you get on your offhand attacks too, so the point remains. Take care Kaezar [EDIT] Corrected a few typos [/EDIT]
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 15, 2010 6:45:17 GMT
I'd have to see your math to comment intelligently, other than to say that acaos and I spent several days arriving at those numbers, and you've spent, what, a few hours by yourself? I have no idea what it is you're doing differently, unless you show all the math. Even then, you're second guessing work done two years ago, which makes it difficult to say the least. Are you factoring in, for example, onhit damages, which hit more with higher iterations? Increased crit special effect hits? Without transparency, this is all wasted chatter, and even if you do set out all the math, I'm quite certain I don't remember how we arrived at those figures, though I'm quite comfortable in defending them.
As for your other point, the halved str damage, I'm still not seeing it. Even your extreme example, the str tank dual weilder who is using weapons smaller than he is, you only come up with a 24 point breakeven, which I think most tanks will hit with just onhits and irresistable - nevermind all their str damage, elemental, exotic, and base weapon damage. I think most str tanks swing 80-90 plus in the hells, and I suspect that number is much higher in the abyss, because of lowered immunities, though I don't have data on that (and that number would have much more deviation from the mean, with all the different tank types). While it's certainly a consideration, and it DOES make dualing smaller weapons less attractive, that does make sense, since they give better ab as a tradeoff - giving different incentives for different build types (lower ab builds will favor the smaller weapons, higher, the larger, for dualing).
Of course, all of that doesn't mean that it's necessarily still a viable alternative for str dualers, but other setups would likely have much more skewed incentives.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Apr 15, 2010 8:53:20 GMT
I saw this post a bit of time ago, and it is now 15 to 5 am. I tried to leave it to answer tomorrow, when I'll be more rest. I swear. but it is not letting me sleep. I'd have to see your math to comment intelligently, other than to say that acaos and I spent several days arriving at those numbers, and you've spent, what, a few hours by yourself? I have no idea what it is you're doing differently, unless you show all the math. Even then, you're second guessing work done two years ago, which makes it difficult to say the least. Are you factoring in, for example, onhit damages, which hit more with higher iterations? Increased crit special effect hits? Without transparency, this is all wasted chatter, and even if you do set out all the math, I'm quite certain I don't remember how we arrived at those figures, though I'm quite comfortable in defending them. Ok, err, uhm Doh. Sorry, but I don't understand this. How does damage figure into this? if we are comparing iterations, whatever special effects the weapon with iteration 3 has, the weapon with iteration 5 should also have. I thought the salient factor here was number of *hits*. otherwise we'll be comparing some mix of iteration and critical ranger, special effects or something. Put another way, we'd be comparing how much, say, a kukry gains from going to iteration 5 to 3. As for the math, I didn't do *math*, as such. That is, I didn't sit down and made mathemagical calculations and arrived at a result. I did a spreadsheet. On lines I put iterations and on colums, the atacks these iterations generate, like this | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 1st attack | | | | | | 2nd attack | | | | | | ... | | | | | | 6th Attack | | | | | | Haste Attack | | | | | | 1st Extra Attack | | | | | | ... | | | | | | 5th Extra Attack | | | | | |
Then I put on each cell the value the attack needed to roll on a 1d20 to hit, give a certain AB, AC and curse song ac drop value, using the formula AC - AB - curse, taking the care to specify a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 20 to the numbers (b/c 20 is a hit, and 1 is a miss regardless of results). So on the second row after title row, the value is AC - AB - Curse -3 for the column 3, -4 for column 4, etc, until column 7 The cells that didn't have any attacks on them, like cell for 6th attack on column of iteration 4, were just left blank. After that colated these results on another table. This table added all the attacks hit in relation to attacks made, for 100 rounds of attacks, for each kind of character. that is, for characters with 1 scripted extra attack, with 2, etc, up to 5 (for those HS staffys that spit on your eye if you look at them wrong) not even sure if it is still possible to hit 5 scripted attacks, but it is there, just in case. Result was this. First number is the number of attacks that hit, while the second is the total number of attacks done. So if a number is 665/700, it should be read as 665 of 700 attacks hit. Hits in 100 rounds, by number of extra attacks # of att - It 3 Iter 4 Iter 5 Iter 6 Iter 7 0 665/700 570/600 475/500 465/500 380/400 1 760/800 665/700 570/600 560/600 475/500 2 855/900 760/800 665/700 655/700 570/600 3 950/1000 855/900 760/800 740/800 640/700 4 1045/1100 950/1000 835/900 795/900 675/800 5 1140/1200 1025/1100 885/1000 820/1000 680/900 Sorry but not going to spend an hour td/tr'ing this. If it doesn't show well, I'll send you the sheet, or an rtf print. I then compared the 3, 4, 6 and 7 columns to the 5 columns, that is our base value, and calculated how many hits *more* or *less* than iteration 5 the other iterations gave, again by number of extra attacks. and got this # Extra Att Iter 3 ------ Iter 4 -------Iter 5 ------Iter 6 -------Iter 7 0 140 120 100 97,89 80 1 133,33 116,67 100 98,25 83,33 2 128,57 114,29 100 98,5 85,71 3 125 112,5 100 97,37 84,21 4 125,15 113,77 100 95,21 80,84 5 128,81 115,82 100 92,66 76,84 The 4th column has always 100 because it is the iteration 5, which is the base. I was all set up to calculate a mediam from my best guess of classes with no, 1 or more extra attack, till I notice the number varied very little, and most of the time down. Well, you asked how I did it. that's how. As for your other point, the halved str damage, I'm still not seeing it. Even your extreme example, the str tank dual weilder who is using weapons smaller than he is, you only come up with a 24 point breakeven, which I think most tanks will hit with just onhits and irresistable - nevermind all their str damage, elemental, exotic, and base weapon damage. I think most str tanks swing 80-90 plus in the hells, and I suspect that number is much higher in the abyss, because of lowered immunities, though I don't have data on that (and that number would have much more deviation from the mean, with all the different tank types). While it's certainly a consideration, and it DOES make dualing smaller weapons less attractive, that does make sense, since they give better ab as a tradeoff - giving different incentives for different build types (lower ab builds will favor the smaller weapons, higher, the larger, for dualing). Of course, all of that doesn't mean that it's necessarily still a viable alternative for str dualers, but other setups would likely have much more skewed incentives. Funky About this I am much less sure. There is a lot of strength dualers out there, str rangers, DD, BG's, CoT's, etc. And they are hardly the only ones affected. Characters like strength rogues are going to hate this, because they will be pushed to morning stars unless they splash or spend feats for martial/exo weapons. And I really hate changes that go counter good sense on real world. The roman legions were the most powerful heavy infantry until gunpowder came on. And what they used? short swords. But that is fluff. D&D makes no sense anyway. Witness spears being two handed weapons. I wonder where the genius that designed this thought greek hoplites held their shields. On their noses? Somewhere lower and more pornographic? Personally, I don't give a damn. My dualers, with exception of my wemic ranger, use medium weapons (Scimmy/H. Mace for BG, bastards for the CoT) and even the wemic will go zeny when I reincarnate him. He is x3 at nessus now. I may wait for the x5 since he is, up to where I know, the only wemic that came all the way from immo as a wemic. Or I may not. Regardless, he is going human with kats, so no problem. But I really don't think it is a good idea to nerf a whole lot of characters that badly, without a good reason. Still, if you think the penalty is worth the bonus the extra attacks gives after factoring the 3 feat cost, ok. Take care Kaezar [EDIT] Just a quick aside I forgot to mention. The numbers above are results of AB 96, AC 89 and curse 7. Other numbers will result in different results, although for substantive variations it will have to be numbers much different. Like increasing the AC by 8 or 9. Also, the sheet at present does not calculate results for dual wielding, or flurry, because I don't remember well how they enter on the calculus, and they also affect the rest of the attacks hit ability. If you want, I can figure out how to put it, but it will be most likely a check for dual wielding and/or flurry. Although at present flurry does not work for weapons, does it? Take care K. [/EDIT]
|
|
|
Post by gandoron on Apr 15, 2010 13:50:42 GMT
I think funky quoted that the AC for a fully cursed Pit Fiend was 105ac, so I normally use about -5 (ab-ac) or -10(ab-ac) for my calculations.
Also, there are only 3 buckets of attacks. Primary Hand Bonus Attacks Off Hand.
They occur in that order. Kaezar, you need to include the Haste attack in the "bonus" pool of attacks for proper attack ab progression.
Here are some various examples of builds with their attacks, in order with ab info.
CoT: Dual Katana + div wrath Standard Prim and Off attacks are -4, Prim bonus attacks are standard ab with 5 iteration
4 95 Prim Standard -4 9 90 Prim Standard -4 14 85 Prim Standard -4 19 80 Prim Standard -4 0 99 Prim Bonus 5 94 Prim Bonus 4 95 Off -4 9 90 Off -4
Dex Ass: Dual A.dagger + clock Standard Prim and Off attacks are -2 (tiny weapon), Prim bonus attacks are standard ab with 5 iteration
2 88 Prim Standard -2 7 83 Prim Standard -2 12 78 Prim Standard -2 17 73 Prim Standard -2 0 90 Prim Bonus 5 85 Prim Bonus 2 88 Off -2 7 83 Off -2
Dual Nunchuka + clock Standard Prim and Off attacks are -4, primary hand uses iteration 3, Prim bonus attacks are standard ab with 5 iteration
4 79 Prim Standard -4 7 76 Prim Standard -4 10 73 Prim Standard -4 13 70 Prim Standard -4 16 67 Prim Standard -4 19 64 Prim Standard -4 0 83 Prim Bonus 5 78 Prim Bonus 4 79 Off -4 9 74 Off -4
AA - Dual Nunchuka + clock Standard Prim -4, Off attacks are -8 (no feats), Prim bonus attacks are standard ab with 5 iteration
4 59 Prim Standard -4 7 56 Prim Standard -4 10 53 Prim Standard -4 13 50 Prim Standard -4 16 47 Prim Standard -4 19 44 Prim Standard -4 0 63 Prim Bonus 0 5 58 Prim Bonus 0 8 55 Off -8
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Apr 15, 2010 18:38:27 GMT
That attack sequence gels with what I know, Gand, I'll see if I find the time to include it on the table somehow. It'll be rough, but workable, I think.
About the pit fiend... I can hardly believe that. I have done tests on the arena as well as some log watching on runs, and I have hit uncursed pit fiends with rolls as low as 93, although they may have been flanked then. My rogue has 96 ab, and it has no problem on hitting them, but for conceal.
I think there is a critter on abyss with this kind of AC, but not on hells. Hell, I don't think asmo has that kind of AC. For one, nobody would be able to hit them with orbs with their AC was that high.
Take care Kaezar
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 15, 2010 21:46:06 GMT
Pits are AC 93 BEFORE cursing. Still reading this thread with interest, should anyone want to work up alternate numbers.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by MightyKhan on Apr 15, 2010 21:58:52 GMT
nvm what i said about doubleweapons 1handed giving -2 AB. i guess i'll have to pick up exotic weapon proficiency on my dragon and start using a doubleweapon. i dont really like the attack animations, but i guess the actual availability of mass damage weapons makes it worth the swap..
i guess ive no more issues with the changes now. (though i still wouldve prefered a normal Gsword over some weirdlooking doubleweapon)
that said, i'll have a go at simulating some 100 round fights this weekend. varying AB, AC, concealment, iteration, anything that might affect hit chances. factoring in damage shouldn't be too hard either.
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Apr 16, 2010 5:13:39 GMT
I see there was no discussion of my methodology to find out the benefits of iteration.
Ok, assuming the points in doubt on my last post were understood, if not necessarily agreed with, then this is what I think.
Just to clarify, I am calling "IC/Keen", "IC+Keen", etc a "category". Martial weapons, simple weapons, etc, are "weapon types"
Some weapons are a bit marginal. Kukry, for one. On its weapon type, it is running in last a good amount of categories, but in special it is last on both IC+Keen and WM 7.
Add this for a slightly overstimated power and it is a recipe for a weapon that will end up on the shelf. In special if you factor that since it is a tiny weapon, characters will be losing some 5 damage/hit at least.
Another example on a different direction is heavy mace. It is a leader already on most all categories among weapons of the same type. Since its iteration 6 does not disadvantage as much as it should, it'll end up the best weapon on its category, hands down.
There may be more cases like that, since I picked those up by glancing at the table. That is why I related my worries about this. I got nothing against changes, per se, but I really dislike having to adapt multiple times to things.
Take care Kaezar
|
|