|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 3:56PM
#1
|
|
|
When I said misses 5% more often I simply meant that the probability of missing increases 5%. Several alert readers have rightly pointed out that this translates into 10% more misses at a to-hit break point of 50/50. This is true. I did not make the 50/50 assumption, but it is not an unreasonable one.
However, I don't care. 10% more misses or 5% higher miss probability, I don't think slavishly slapping an 18 in your primary is your best bet. Nor do I think it happens on the Char Op boards often, usually they take a more reasoned look at the attribute and decide if they care about that +1 to hit. However, in non Char-op boards and occasionally in "optimize me" threads, the "18 or bust!" line rears it's ugly head.
My favorite example is with a core tactical warlord. It's my opinion that because of the passive benefits and the myriad tactical presence bonuses to powers that intelligence is a more important stat to a taclord than strength. I like an 18 in intelligence and a 16 in strength (we're not allowed gensai of course). However, I frequently see the arguments that "18 str is better because first you have to hit!" This vexes me. The taclord has an at will that uses someone else's attack bonus. He has a dailiy at level 1 that gives a bonus to hit proportional to his int, not his strength. His tactical surge ability divides his int by two and rounds down which means a 16 int is only as good as a 14. His healing abilities require neither attribute bonus. Reccomending an 18 str with a racial bonus or *shudder* 18 without a racial bonus seems to be flat out bad advice.
Control wizard is another example where it seems like int is the only stat that matters but at high level wis becomes more important. In both of these cases (and in the TANK case) there's simply something better than your "primary" attribute on the table.
If your character is going to make a lot of rolls and wants to maximize his damage then you want to maximize your primary attribute. If not, then hitting may not be your first concern. And a 16 is plenty.
In answer to my ninjas above--I dig racial bonuses. However, I'm not sure I'd select a race just because it gave a bonus to my primary--the Dragonborn fighter v. Dwarf fighter being the classic example. I think that:
A) a stat array that includes an 18 is almost always a bad idea.
B) Using a racial bonus to boost a 16 to an 18 is sometimes a bad idea.
C) A starting +3 to hit bonus from a 16 is often enough.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 4:09PM
#2
|
|
|
This is incorrect. You don't understand the math.
Titanium Dragon, I completely understand the math involved. Point out a single mistake in what I wrote about the percentages instead of being rude. If you can't, then don't say I'm wrong.
I do agree with ReaderOfPosts that there's little point in saying 5% over saying +1, though.
The 10% is in fact what is actually important, not the 5%.
The reason is that the 10% contributes to an understanding of the increase in efficacy far more than the 5% does.
Your damage doesn't increase by 5% by getting +1 to hit; it increases by closer to 10% (though less than 10% due to the nature of crits).
THIS is why the 10% figure is so important, and why those who say 5% are wrong and don't really understand what they're talking about.
Hmmm... Did you know there effects on a miss? Did you totally leave that out of what you wrote? Whoops! If you want to understand the true probability of something happening, you need to deal with the 5% chance increase on the hit and decrease on the miss. If your chance happens to be 50-50, then it will show up. If it's not 50-50, then using 10% in your analysis will be a pain to adjust.
Example 1: You attack a minion and have Hammer Rhythm. Paying attention to the 5% increase and the 5% decrease correctly gives you the result of no change. Using only the 10% gives you an incorrect answer.
Example 2: Let's see what happens when you use Hammer Rhythm against something that does give you a 50-50 chance. We'll say you're using a Constitution based attack doing 4W+Con damage. You get (4W+Con-Con)/20 increase to average damage. Your average before was 2W+Con damage. Let's see, (W/5)/(2W+Con)=1/(10+5*Con/W)<10%.
This isn't limited to Hammer Rhythm. The game is full of effects on a miss. It's also full of effects on a hit. It's also not always 50-50. Thus a proper analysis should be based on the 5% increase in hitting and 5% decrease in missing.
So stop saying we don't know what we're talking about when clearly many of us do. The only point of doing so is to be extremely rude. Why bother involving yourself in such a discussion with the point of being rude, especially when you're being rude to the person who was trying to help get everyone past a silly issue over semantics?
Its also worth noting that you add to your damage as well.
Yes, it is.
Chris
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 5:23PM
#3
|
|
|
Uh, it's only 50/50 to-hit rate at the Paragon tier.
Are we all assuming Paragon characters to get that 10% or something?
+1 is less than 10% at Heroic and slightly higher in Epic. But +2 is not +20%, even in Paragon, it's less than that, and each cumulative +1 makes it an increasingly smaller increase when looked at that way.
It's not a flat +10% (it's not even +10% at exactly 50/50 but I digress).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 5:47PM
#4
|
|
|
As someone who likes playing a Warmage (yes, I'm a mathematical, damage-output optimizing *****), I like having one really good stat (especially Charisma, as you can do oh-so-much with it :D), but having one high score does not a good character make. Do monsters with higher stats than everyone in the party win? NO. Tactics, preparation, and maybe one or two really high scores wins. I play strikers, so I like them, and I'm sure most of the people on this specific board are of a like or at least similar mind. However, I HATE for my Warmage to have 24 CHA, 16 INT, and then 10s and an 8 for the rest, if you get my drift. It's like having a fighter with one arm twice the size of the other: it's just really weird to see, no matter how high his supposed damage output is.
Just my take.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 6:02PM
#5
|
|
|
I suggest we use the terms "probability" and "accuracy" to avoid confusion.
a +1 to hit always gives:
a 5% increase in hit probability
starting at a 50% hit rate, it gives:
a 10% increase in accuracy (50% to 55%)
Questions though:
1. Is a 50% hit rate standard at all three tiers?
2. What are the underlying stats that give this 50% hit rate?
if a 16 in your main stat provides a 50% hit rate, then a bump to 18 provides a 10% increase in accuracy
if an 18 provides a 50% hit rate, then a bump from 16 to 18 provides a ~11% increase in accuracy.
And, as some have already asked, what are you giving up when you boost from 16 to 18?
1. Hit points and possibly healing surges
2. Higher Fort, Reflex, or Will Save
3. Higher AC (for some light armor builds)
4. Versatility for classes with more than one attack stat
5. Lost feats do to pre-requisites missed or versatility issue (see below)
Versatility for multiple attack stat classes is hardest to factor into the cost/benefit analysis. For some of these classes (e.g. Paladin) there are levels where all powers are based off one of the stats. A build based off of one attack stat would have to either take a power with a rather low chance to hit or do a multiclass power swap at the cost of a feat. Just how much lower is their hit chance? What is the opportunity cost(in terms of other feats forgone) for the multi-class feat? Additionally, as in the case of the Paladin and sometimes the Warlock.....power ranges and types (single target, close burst, ranged blast, etc.) vary according to the attack stat. Focusing on Str. exclusively for example, denies paladins ranged attacks and most burst/blast attacks. Whether this matters depends on the types of combat typically engaged in and the composition of the party overall. And of course finally, at some levels all the attacks based off of one of the stats may simply be bad/unbalanced.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 8:27PM
#6
|
|
|
To make things very clear:
Let's say you deal 10 damage on a hit, and 15 on a critical. (Easy numbers.) With a 16, you hit 50% of the time -- when you roll an 11 through a 20.
(10x0)+(10x9)+(1x15)
--------------------- = 5.25 Damage per attack.
20
Now, let's compare to an 18. Here you only have to roll a 10.
(9x0)+(10x10)+(1x15)
--------------------- = 5.75 Damage per attack.
20
If you make six of these attacks per combat, and for some reason your damage never changed, you'd lose 3 potential damage every combat. This is assuming that your damage never increases. (If you multiply by 10, the damage differential goes up by 10. Just as an example.)
My sig will reappear when this forum stops being stupid and gets sblock coding.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 9:54PM
#7
|
|
|
to the OP. If you are tired of it, don't read the CO forum threads. Thats the whole point of it. You don't come into a CO thread and state that sub optimal is ok. That defies the very purpose of the existing forum. Therefore your logic is faulty, and a 16 in a primary attack stat, blows.
Although I will tell you this much, when you are a defender(paladin/fighter) your +hit can suck if your main goal is to keep things marked, and take hits. So, a dwarf fighter can be ok,(not so much paladins imo, but whatever) because he can survive the hits, while marking on a miss. Paladins as well, you don't even have to hit, just attack or be adjacent to the enemy you mark.
I understand why it is frustrating, but if you look at the mechanics, you have to fight for every single point you can get. settling for a 16 because you want to RP a different sum-optimal race? great! have FUN. but don't complain in the CO forums. Where is the logic in that???
That is about as effective as telling people a bugbear brutal rogue isn't optimized. because it is...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 10:50PM
#8
|
|
|
Having a racial bonus in secondary stats is nearly as good as having racial bonus in primary. For example consider a Str-based Paladin: Dragonborn Paladin:STR 16(18) CON 14 DEX 13 INT 10 WIS 14 CHA 8(10) Dwarf Paladin:STR 18 CON 12(14) DEX 12 INT 10 WIS 12(14) CHA 8 Nearly the exact same stats. Personally I would never take a 16 in primary attack stat because missing on Encounter/Daily is not fun. Even if it's debatable whether its 5-10%, its still 5-10% less fun. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 10:50PM
#9
|
|
|
to the OP. If you are tired of it, don't read the CO forum threads. Thats the whole point of it. You don't come into a CO thread and state that sub optimal is ok. That defies the very purpose of the existing forum. Therefore your logic is faulty, and a 16 in a primary attack stat, blows.
Although I will tell you this much, when you are a defender(paladin/fighter) your +hit can suck if your main goal is to keep things marked, and take hits. So, a dwarf fighter can be ok,(not so much paladins imo, but whatever) because he can survive the hits, while marking on a miss. Paladins as well, you don't even have to hit, just attack or be adjacent to the enemy you mark.
I understand why it is frustrating, but if you look at the mechanics, you have to fight for every single point you can get. settling for a 16 because you want to RP a different sum-optimal race? great! have FUN. but don't complain in the CO forums. Where is the logic in that???
That is about as effective as telling people a bugbear brutal rogue isn't optimized. because it is...
His argument isn't that "sub-optimal" is ok. His argument is that for some classes/builds it is actually optimal to place a 16 in a primary stat instead of an 18 because of the trade-offs involved. Sometimes those extra points may be more useful when placed in secondary or tertiary attributes. The argument has nothing to do with role-playing suboptimal races.
He may be wrong...it may always be the case that an 18 is preferable regardless of the opportunity cost involved but you certainly didn't prove that with your dismissive comments. Regardless, this is an optimization debate so he is in the right place.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Aug 31, 2008 - 10:58PM
#10
|
|
|
to the OP. If you are tired of it, don't read the CO forum threads. Thats the whole point of it. You don't come into a CO thread and state that sub optimal is ok. That defies the very purpose of the existing forum. Therefore your logic is faulty, and a 16 in a primary attack stat, blows.
Although I will tell you this much, when you are a defender(paladin/fighter) your +hit can suck if your main goal is to keep things marked, and take hits. So, a dwarf fighter can be ok,(not so much paladins imo, but whatever) because he can survive the hits, while marking on a miss. Paladins as well, you don't even have to hit, just attack or be adjacent to the enemy you mark.
I understand why it is frustrating, but if you look at the mechanics, you have to fight for every single point you can get. settling for a 16 because you want to RP a different sum-optimal race? great! have FUN. but don't complain in the CO forums. Where is the logic in that???
That is about as effective as telling people a bugbear brutal rogue isn't optimized. because it is...
Quoted for truth.
|
|
|
