Improved Crit: XXX is better then GTWF. Why not nerf ITWF?

[tgu]

As you can see from the math I crunched in a post here: http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=91

The shorter version of what it says:

I am not sure about this statement.

Lets say you are doing 40-50 damage, 40-50 damage, with lets say 19-20 crit range for x3 damage

You will do 100% main hand

With TWF, ITWF you'll do 60% off hand

*SNIP*

=== If you compared GTWF/Imp Crit with a 19-20 crit x3 it would win out. If it was a quarterstaff, club, or some other 20 range crit with x2, then maybe GTWF is better....but it's not unrealistic for weapons to have 19-20, x3

Imp. Crit came out 36 damage ahead

Imp. Crit > GTWF; however, ITWF > Imp. Crit

Edit: I realized there was a mistake in my math, each tier of TWF = 20% chance increase to proc off-hand attack (20 base + 20% + 20% + 20%). Thanks for catching that guys.

Then make GTWF 80%. It seems silly you:

TWF - One feat - 20% (40% total)
ITWF -Two feat - 40% (60% total)
GTWF- Three feat - 60% (80% total)

Does anyone else have concerns that Imp. Crit is better then ANY tier of TWF, especially GTWF?

My proposed suggestion:

TWF - One feat - 15% (35% total)= -5%
ITWF- Two feat - 20% (55% total) = -5%
GTWF- Three feat - 25% (80% total) = 0% even

[Relenthe]

It doesn't matter if 1 is better than the other. you should take all of them

[Valanius]

It doesn't matter if 1 is better than the other. you should take all of them

^This! If you dont like one dont take it.

[jkm]

As you can see from the math I crunched in a post here: http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=91

The shorter version of what it says:


Why not nerf ITWF to 40% or possibly 50%.

Then make GTWF 80%. It seems silly you:

One feat - 20%
Two feat - 60%
Three feat - 80%

Does anyone else have concerns that Imp. Crit is better then tier 1 and 3 of TWF, or that these feats aren't more balanced?

you are reading the feat wrong

no feats = 20%
1 feat = 40%
2 feats = 60%
3 feats = 80%

[tgu]

you are reading the feat wrong

no feats = 20%
1 feat = 40%
2 feats = 60%
3 feats = 80%

Oh, thanks for catching that. Yeah, I guess IC: Slashing is better then any one feat of all of those.

I'll change the original post, but the point stands. Why have 3 feats if the extra bonus doesn't scale (20% base + 15 + 20 + 25) -- that kind of logic.

regardless of the validity of the conclusions, you have a couple of mistakes in your math.
1) you assume that 19-20 crit range means you'll hit 9 regular hits, and 1 crit. in fact, the calculation should be 1 miss, 17 regular hits, and 2 crits. This will likely put IC ahead even further. However:
2) you don't consider things like bursts or other effects at all. What other effects you have will push IC or GTWF further up. Bursts in general will bias IC, but greater XX bane, pure good, holy, and lighning strikes will benefit from GTWF more than IC.

In my math, it showed that with a larger crit window or larger crit multiplier that IC only gets more deadly...in BOTH hands.

I would agree that I didn't do ALL the math, and effects that could proc could mean more. But at the end of the day...won't critting always rule? A lot of builds have crazy multipliers - a barb, khopesh user, etc etc

Hope I am coming clear...I am saying IC: Slashing could be almost as good as almost two feats of TWF it *looks like*.

[kernal42]

Does anyone else have concerns that Imp. Crit is better then tier 1 and 3 of TWF, or that these feats aren't more balanced?

I'm more concerned that Imp Crit adds more dps than Dodge. That seriously needs changing.

[awang20]

I'm more concerned that Imp Crit adds more dps than Dodge. That seriously needs changing.

Agreed, think about how many arms you could dislocate by dodging swings.

[Raithe]

I'm more concerned that Imp Crit adds more dps than Dodge. That seriously needs changing.

The fact that Dodge is a hilariously useless feat (while still a prereq) when improved crit can double the chances of many powerful crit effects while increasing damage by approximately 20% isn't necessarily something to be concerned about, true.

It probably does make any reasonable person wonder how the game design could go so wrong.

[Relenthe]

But you do 0 dps when you're dead. I Like to take self sufficiency on my characters so that doesn't become an issue

[stille_nacht]

But you do 0 dps when you're dead. I Like to take self sufficiency on my characters so that doesn't become an issue

yeah, because 5% damage decrease (or, more likely, 0%), is totally going to make you really self sufficient.

[kernal42]

yeah, because 5% damage decrease (or, more likely, 0%), is totally going to make you really self sufficient.

I can only assume he refers to the feat, "Self Sufficient."

Whose balance, of course, is even more question than Imp Crit vs GTWF.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

But you do 0 dps when you're dead. I Like to take self sufficiency on my characters so that doesn't become an issue

I'd welcome you to the game but I see you have somehow been here since 2006.

[Relenthe]

Just to clarify the people who failed their /sarcasm check. I was referring to the feat self sufficiency and the +2 to heal, and was playing off the need the nerf the feat dodge as kernal stated. (again, please make sure to put more skill points into your sarcasm check skill for this 1.)

[ulticleo]

regardless of the validity of the conclusions, you have a couple of mistakes in your math.
1) you assume that 19-20 crit range means you'll hit 9 regular hits, and 1 crit. in fact, the calculation should be 1 miss, 17 regular hits, and 2 crits. This will likely put IC ahead even further. However:
2) you don't consider things like bursts or other effects at all. What other effects you have will push IC or GTWF further up. Bursts in general will bias IC, but greater XX bane, pure good, holy, and lighning strikes will benefit from GTWF more than IC.

As others pointed out, you really want to try to fit both.

Also, the thread was discussing Handwraps, not kopeshes, and I am pretty sure for HW, GTWF is way better than IC.

[Angelus_dead]

Does anyone else have concerns that Imp. Crit is better then tier 1 and 3 of TWF

Improved Critical is not better than tier 1 and 3 of TWF, because the game includes

• Fortification
• Keen
• Sneak Attack
• Holy
• Lightning Strike
• Stunning Fist
• Ki
• Handwraps
• Vorpal

And other effects that preference a higher rate of attacks over gaining more crit chance.

However, it is notable that the just-announced nerf to helpless autocrits has increased the value of Imp Crit compared to TWF.

[tgu]

Improved Critical is not better than tier 1 and 3 of TWF, because the game includes

• Fortification
• Keen
• Sneak Attack
• Holy
• Lightning Strike
• Stunning Fist
• Ki
• Handwraps
• Vorpal

And other effects that preference a higher rate of attacks over gaining more crit chance.

However, it is notable that the just-announced nerf to helpless autocrits has increased the value of Imp Crit compared to TWF.

I guess my post was to go more in the direction of nerfing TWF, ITWF to buff GTWF...thus a ladder climbing scenario where the user gets more from more feats of TWF.

Against 0% fort, IC: Slashing will have a field day...but vs 25/50/100% the math goes in a totally different direction.

At any rate, IC: Slashing brings up a a larger issue...3 must have feats for TWF, and the first feat is just as good as the third feat.

[dkyle]

I guess my post was to go more in the direction of nerfing TWF, ITWF to buff GTWF...thus a ladder climbing scenario where the user gets more from more feats of TWF..

I don't understand why this is desirable. Most rules-systems, in fact front-load benefit, giving further effort diminishing returns. This helps make generalists as viable as specialists.

TWF is already essentially worthless without GTWF. If you can't take GTWF, you should go THF.

If anything, TWF and ITWF should be worth more, so that TWF without GTWF is viable.

[Vynnt]

This is a case where practice trumps math.

Later in the game you will typically see these scenarios,

gTWF vs Imp Crit
No deathward / No fort - gTWF wins via Vorp ex: trash
Deathward / No fort - gTWF wins via Hold Monster ex: Epic
Bosses - gTWF wins via Min II (IC built in!)
heavy fort anything - IC loses

I can't think of many places where IC excels over gTWF.

EDIT:
Basically, anything that can't be vorped or autocritted, you can just use Min II

[Vanshilar]

Whether or not IC is better will depend on which weapon you're using and what fortification the target has. In your analysis, you're using a weapon with a (base) crit range of 19-20, and a x3 multiplier. That will basically work only for khopeshes, which have the best combination of crit range and crit multiplier. For other weapons, IC won't perform as well. Also, once there's fortification, IC will also not perform as well. Also, some people choose to go with mineral 2 weapons which have keen, and thus, don't need the IC feat.

However, it's true that IC may perform better than GTWF (or, for that matter, ITWF), depending on the circumstances. The TWF feats basically increase your offhand attacks, but they are weaker than your primary attacks (due to only getting half of the strength bonus). How much weaker will depend on your specific build and which buffs are available, but say it's 15% less damage than your main hand (i.e. offhand damage = 0.85 * main hand damage). Also, say you're not using seeker damage (so that relative ratios can be used). Assuming khopeshes vs 0% fort, without IC across 20 hits, you'll do an average of (17*1 + 2*3)/20 = 23/20 of the base damage. With IC, you'll do an average of (15*1 + 4*3)/20 = 27/20 of the base damage. Thus, IC improves your original damage by a ratio of 27/23. Taking all this together, the damage output that you do, relative to the average damage of a main hand hit (including crits but without the IC feat), is:

Feats	No_IC	ImpCrit
None	1.17	1.373
TWF	1.34	1.573
ITWF	1.51	1.773
GTWF	1.68	1.972

Notice that without IC, the damage is somewhat less than the 20% per tier gains from the TWF feats, because offhand damage will be somewhat less than your main hand damage (here, assumed 15% less). So yeah you'd benefit more from taking the IC feat if you're going khopeshes, vs 0% fort. If you're going dwarven axes, however, it would look like:

Feats	No_IC	ImpCrit
None	1.17	1.281
TWF	1.34	1.468
ITWF	1.51	1.654
GTWF	1.68	1.840

and it becomes better to take the TWF feats first. So it really depends on what weapons you choose, and the crit profile they have. If you're using rapiers/scimitars/falchions (crit range 18-20, crit multiplier 2), it would look like:

Feats	No_IC	ImpCrit
None	1.17	1.330
TWF	1.34	1.523
ITWF	1.51	1.716
GTWF	1.68	1.909

They're basically tied. In this case, however, the TWF would win out as soon as fortification is introduced.

What's really happening here is that the TWF feats are adding a fixed amount of damage output per tier, while IC multiplies your existing damage output by a certain amount. So for the TWF feats, adding 0.17x more damage, in going from no feats to TWF, means 1.34/1.17 = 1.145x or 14.5% more damage. Adding the same 0.17x more damage when you already have ITWF (1.51x), however, means 1.68/1.51 = 1.113 or 11.3% more damage. So each TWF tier is worth slightly less than the previous one in terms of your overall damage output, so basically diminishing returns, while IC is a flat increase, which depends on the weapon's crit profile (crit range and crit multiplier). Whether IC is better will depend on your weapon choice. For khopeshes, it will likely be better vs 0% fort. For handwraps, you'd want the TWF feats instead.

[AylinIsAwesome]

oh, as in +2 to heal or something? o-O

if we are going to branch out, how about say... snake blood, or skill focus: anything, or most of the feats come to think about it o-O.

also, 20% offhand chance = approximately 6% (10%, half str bonus though)

Hey, don't knock my Skill Focus: Swim!