|
Post by MightyKhan on Apr 17, 2010 9:44:26 GMT
Kaezar, I'll post my (slightly updated - was indeed using 7 attacks for it 3) code if you are interested in where I get my figures.
Tonight I'll be putting crit chances in as well and possibly damage.
|
|
|
Post by hackenslay on Apr 17, 2010 14:20:44 GMT
First, let me say I don't know what I'm talking about, so if I'm wrong just overlook me.
Having said that, though, I saw a problem with the crit tables. You said that all crits are equal, which is not true at all.
Lets say you have 2 cases:in #1 you need an 11 to hit the target AB and in #2 you need a 16 to hit the target AB. Now if you have a 15% crit chance(18-20) that means that the actual adjusted crit chance is 50% x 15% in case one(because you also have to make the crit confirmation roll) or 7.5%, and the second case is only 25% x 15% or 3.75%
So not sure how you would add this into your table, or if you already have but thought it worth mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by jeanhelixü on Apr 17, 2010 14:46:51 GMT
Personally, I will either pick a weapon at random using a dart board, or stop playing tanks entirely when this system is implemented. There are simply so many variables that I can't figure out when various weapon types would actually be effective.
I just don't understand why it is necessary to increase the complexity of tank building to such a huge degree. There are already so many options that even if I were inclined to try, I likely wouldn't succeed at making every viable tank build in the time from now until then end of HG, even if that should take another decade.
|
|
|
Post by MightyKhan on Apr 17, 2010 16:11:02 GMT
TBH, I think I will like this added complexity. And I also hope it will enable some interesting new type of tank builds, though I haven't started searching for them yet.
One build has been mentioned already: a battlecleric with a high iteration weapon shouldn't miss out too much, because of the extra attacks from Divine Power. (Same for mages actually - baneknights for example.)
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 17, 2010 17:59:54 GMT
Personally, I will either pick a weapon at random using a dart board, or stop playing tanks entirely when this system is implemented. There are simply so many variables that I can't figure out when various weapon types would actually be effective. I just don't understand why it is necessary to increase the complexity of tank building to such a huge degree. There are already so many options that even if I were inclined to try, I likely wouldn't succeed at making every viable tank build in the time from now until then end of HG, even if that should take another decade. There are only a few actual changes. All of this complexity is present in the current system, since there are already variable-iteration weapons, variable crit damage multiplies, and variable crit ranges. If anything, we made the job of picking weapons simpler, by listing our rough calcs of their comparative damages with given feats. Of course, those calcs predated feats modifying crit confirmation rolls (power and sup crit), but nothing in these edits is making any of the math more complex than it already is. The point isn't to increase complexity (it really doesn't), but to make all weapons potentially useful, making the presently 'useless' weapons comparatively stronger. Funky
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Apr 18, 2010 5:12:16 GMT
Uhm, I thought I was clear about this, but it seems I wasn't.
My reasoning is not that all criticals were created equal, or some such.
It is that on the range of AB/AC/Curse that successful tanks work on hells, there is not much difference between chances of critical until the trailing (last) attacks.
Of course, as funky pointed out, this is just an assumption, not proven out. Which is why I am doing all the work on that spreadsheet. Hopefully, it'll prove one point or another.
Just to clarify further, a quick look at my tanks shows that my lowest AB tank (my rogue) has an AB of 96.
On hells, he'll be contending with a median ab of 89, that is further reduced to at most some 84, and that with a weak bard curse.
having ab 96, he goes at 96, 91 86 (rogue only 3 attacks) and 96 for haste. Since the lack of attacks hurts damage output a lot, I sometimes read tenser scrolls to get an extra attack. That one goes at 91.
In HG critical chance goes like this (correct me if I am wrong, please). You roll to hit. if you hit, another roll is made, and if this roll is again a hit, and the result is inside the critical range of the weapon, the result is a critical.
Funky, I'm not sure where power critical/superior power critical enters. Does it add just to the hit check on the second roll, or also to the critical range check? My feeling is the first only, but I want to be sure.
Ok, then for the aforementioned rogue. If he made an attack and hits against the AC 84 I mentioned, he gets another roll. Lets make that his lowest ab attack, just for the sake of the argument.
That would be 86. Now to check for criticas. there are two condition. If the second roll is a hit (and it always is, since there is not miss for 1's on this check) and it is within critical range (which it will be only if the die result is within the weapon critical range modified by keen, feats, classes, etc) the result is a critical.
It is a logical AND, but between a condition that always happens and another that only happen some of the time, the only condition that matters is the second.
TRUE AND Condition = condition.
Now, hell penalties do lower AB some, and some characters have an attack sequence that end up a lot lower than the rogue from the example. Which is why I said that about missing trailing attacks.
Now, I was saying that within the range we work the chance of criticals won't vary *much*. Funky says that was not rigorous enough. So I'm doing a spreadsheet that calculates exactly what happens for each combination of AB, AC, Curse, etc., for each case.
That's it
Take care Kaezar
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Apr 18, 2010 6:16:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 18, 2010 6:19:17 GMT
PC and SC only affect the confirmation roll, and were NOT a factor in making our spreadsheet.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Apr 18, 2010 10:36:17 GMT
PC and SC only affect the confirmation roll, ... Funky sorry to keep bugging you, but as far as I know, the confirmation *roll* is the whole second-roll-check-for-hit-and-critical-range thing. What I am asking is, does the bonus apply, within the confirmation roll, only to the check for hit, or for both the check for hit and for critical ranger or (albeit I only thought of this possibility now) only for the check for critical range? My thought is, it applies only for the first check, because if you apply 10 for the critical range check, you'll be making criticals a certainty for certain conditions, if a hit is made (every assassin using assassin dagger will crit every hit where he has AB > AC-curse, and in a goodly amount of attacks even if it is not so high). and were NOT a factor in making our spreadsheet. Funky I knew that, and only put an option to calculate its effects because it exists now. If you don't want to use, you don't need to. Take care Kaezar
|
|
|
Post by MightyKhan on Apr 18, 2010 11:15:01 GMT
nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Threat_roll says the threat roll has to be a hit. PC and SC provide additional AB for that second roll. Note that it's just a hit, it's got nothing to do with threat ranges. So if you hit on 10+ it doesn't matter what the confirmation roll looks like if you have SC.
|
|
|
Post by hackenslay on Apr 18, 2010 13:04:34 GMT
MightyKhan, that was my understanding of the dynamics of it too.
First you roll to hit. If you hit and the roll is in the threat range, then a second roll is made(the critical conformation roll). If this roll hits at all then it is actually a confirmed critical.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 18, 2010 16:58:20 GMT
Mighty and hack are correct.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Apr 18, 2010 19:11:54 GMT
Ok. I confess I had misunderstood the order of the rolls. I thought the check for critical ranger happened on the second roll on hg. But that doesn't change the probabilities either way, the my understanding of the mechanics of PC/IPC was correct, and that was the most important thing.
The trip I took yesterday was harder than I expected, and I was too wrecked to start working on the sheet up to now. I'll update when I finish or it.
Take care Kaezar
|
|
|
Post by magecat on Apr 18, 2010 22:04:21 GMT
I thought the comparison between Greatsword and Bastard Sword was interesting.
Historically, the greatsword was used as a speed weapon by individual comabatants, where as sword and shield, of whatever nature, was used in formation combat.
The greatsword gave up defense and team support for speed in skirmishing. I can go into proper use if anyone wants to know, but it doesn't swing like the game portrays.
Anyway, I know it is a game, and needs balance. I thought it might be more appropriate for a faster iteration for two handed use vice sword and shield.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 18, 2010 22:10:22 GMT
We can't make shields affect iterations without yet another engine hack - not likely to happen. So, larger, more unweildy weapons, get higher iterations.
Funky
|
|