At what point should you take crit enhancement lines over damage?

[SynalonEtuul]

It's always nice when you kill something with a huge spell crit, but when should I be taking critical spell damage enhancement lines over simple spell power enhancements? Is it only once I've filled them out completely? Thanks.

[ZeebaNeighba]

In general, the first of either enhancement lines are stronger than the 2nd through 6th (or 7th in the spell power line)...it also depends on how much spell power and crit stuff you already have. So there is no single enhancement type that is guaranteed stronger for everyone.

For example, let's take a water savant with 6 tiers of the ice spell power enhancements, and nothing at all (gear or enhancement) for crits. Then crunch a few numbers to see when the 7th spell power enhancement (+10 spell power) is even with the first crit range enhancement (+4%, 1.5 multiplier). Essentially, when you have the first crit range enhancement, you will get half an extra spell's worth of damage, 4% of the time. So, out of 100 casts, you will, on average, see about a 2% increase in your overall damage. For +10 spell power to be a 2% increase in your damage, you need to already have 400 spell power from other sources (the first six tiers of the enhancements, metamagics, gear, etc). So if you already have 400 spell power on your spells, the 7th (or 2nd, or 3rd, or so on) spell power enhancement breaks even with the first critical enhancement. If you have more spell power, it's weaker, and less spell power, it's stronger than the crits.

But if you have a superior ice lore item (+12% crit chance and +.5 to multiplier) and compare the same enhancements, it's different. Now, every 100 casts, without any enhancements, on average you'll get an extra spell's worth of damage on 12 of them. The crit range enhancement will make it 16 of those casts out of each 100 instead. So the crit range enhancement adds 4/112 (simplifies to 1/28) to your damage. For 10 spell power to add 1/28 to your stuff, you need to have 180 spell power from other sources...if you have more, the first crit range enhancement is stronger.

But then, take the above example...once you take the first crit range enhancement, the second only adds 1/116 to your damage, meaning that it is only stronger than the spell power enhancement if you already have 1060 spell power...which you probably do not.


TLDR, for most people, it's best to take 7 enhancements in spell power, 1 in crit range, and 1 in crit multiplier, if you're tight on enhancement points, though I can't say for sure until I know your spell power/crit without enhancements (and how many points you want to spend altogether)

[RabidApathy]

Yeah, I normally run 7/1/1 in my primary element(s), and 1/0/0 in any off elements I use semi-regularly. I just can't justify the cost for the higher crit enhancements unless I'm going for a screenshot damage number.

[donfilibuster]

I prefer to take the crit lines in full, so can postpone until after the damage lines.
At that point you have major lores and such, thus the crits become an important part of the damage dealt.
(instead of merely extra damage)

[Thalone]

I put together a spreadsheet for this exact problem. Although, now that I look at it, it includes invalid AP combinations like 1/6/6... something I should fix when I find the time.

[Jaid314]

yeah, unless you're looking at a savant or something else with a required AP investment... 7/1/1 is usually the best bet.

not just because the crits don't add much damage over all, but also because quite frankly... you can't really rely on crits anyways. it works out as a fairly predictable damage increase for, say, eladar's electric surge when used on a raid boss. but when nuking trash, unless you're using something single target, getting a crit against one of your targets doesn't really reduce the number of times you're going to have to cast a spell to kill all the enemies anyways. this isn't to say that it will never be useful (you might, for example, get lucky enough to crit an important enemy such as an enemy arcane or divine just before they cast something unpleasant, or manage to crit an archer that is going to be harder to kite most of the time), but most of the time... crit rate only really improves your damage usefully against something with a very large amount of hit points.

[Postumus]

yeah, unless you're looking at a savant or something else with a required AP investment... 7/1/1 is usually the best bet.

not just because the crits don't add much damage over all, but also because quite frankly... you can't really rely on crits anyways. s.

If this is true why do so many melee take improved critical feats?

[donfilibuster]

If this is true why do so many melee take improved critical feats?

Not the same context, critting works differently for melees, for instance it doesn't involve spending AP, which is what the thread is about.

The quoted post elaborate with important points like that the damage gain shows more with bosses than with trash.
I believe you should be able to max the crit chance before taking the crit line, while on lower levels the chance is smaller and thus the AP is better spent raising the damage lines.
Sure the gap is only from 10% to 20%sh but the AP can get scarce if you are taking multiple damages and the PrEs.

[Postumus]

Not the same context, critting works differently for melees, for instance it doesn't involve spending AP, which is what the thread is about.

The quoted post elaborate with important points like that the damage gain shows more with bosses than with trash.
I believe you should be able to max the crit chance before taking the crit line, while on lower levels the chance is smaller and thus the AP is better spent raising the damage lines.
Sure the gap is only from 10% to 20%sh but the AP can get scarce if you are taking multiple damages and the PrEs.

APs are more plentiful than feats so the opportunity cost is far less. If IC is valuable enough to spend a feat on, I do not see the rationale that it is not valuable enough for APs unless you are building a generalist caster- which I would not. 4 APs to double crit chance is a worthwhile cost IMO if one does not have the gear.

For instance a Sorc savant should definitely max out crit ranges for its savant line. The SP to damage cost is much better that way.

[ZeebaNeighba]

If this is true why do so many melee take improved critical feats?

Melee have much faster attack speed than spell casters. A caster may only cast two or three nukes in 5 seconds, and relying on a crit from some of those isn't going to work out as often as wanting to get crits from a melee who can get 10 hits in those 5 seconds (that's also why the crits are mainly useful against bosses/single targets, you have enough time against a boss that you actually can rely on a fair amount of crits to land)

[Brennie]

APs are more plentiful than feats so the opportunity cost is far less. If IC is valuable enough to spend a feat on, I do not see the rationale that it is not valuable enough for APs unless you are building a generalist caster- which I would not. 4 APs to double crit chance is a worthwhile cost IMO if one does not have the gear.

For instance a Sorc savant should definitely max out crit ranges for its savant line. The SP to damage cost is much better that way.

Keep in mind, improved crit is also vastly superior to spellcaster crit lines. Improved crit gives, at worst, 100% more chance of 2x damage (This, of course, entirely relies on the weapon crit range/multiplier being used).

But also compare the situation between a theoretical fire savant with fireball and a barbarian with a pair of kopeshes. The barbarian runs in to a group and starts hacking at one of them. It takes him 4 swings to drop an enemy, and then turns and starts hacking at the next closest. Now, if that barb gets a crit, his enemy drops faster, which means he can engage the new enemy faster, which means his overall killing speed is faster.

The sorc, on the other hand, runs into a group of mobs and casts fireball. most of the group is reduced to 1/2 hitpoints, and a handful get critted and die. Sorc waits for cooldown, and then hits fireball again, wiping out the rest of the group. In this situation, the sorc used just as many spellpoints and just as much time killing the group as if he had had no crits.

Now, unlike some others, i like to max out my crits lines of my primary element, especially if its cold or electric. DoTs on bosses that take more than 30 seconds alone make this investment worth it for me, as the crit really help bring up the avergae damage I do, and obviously how quickly the boss dies.

[AtomicMew]

APs are more plentiful than feats so the opportunity cost is far less. If IC is valuable enough to spend a feat on, I do not see the rationale that it is not valuable enough for APs unless you are building a generalist caster- which I would not. 4 APs to double crit chance is a worthwhile cost IMO if one does not have the gear.

For instance a Sorc savant should definitely max out crit ranges for its savant line. The SP to damage cost is much better that way.

Crit lines for a sorcerer savant are pre-reqs, so a sorc doesn't even have a choice. For other elements, it's mostly down to 7/1/1 in two more lines or 7/5/5 in one more line. You don't really have enough AP to go 7/5/5 in three lines, unless you sacrifice elsewhere. Sometimes having three elements is more efficient than two fully maxed elements. It's all very situational, but that's why most people go 7/1/1.

[donfilibuster]

APs are more plentiful than feats so the opportunity cost is far less. If IC is valuable enough to spend a feat on, I do not see the rationale that it is not valuable enough for APs unless you are building a generalist caster- which I would not. 4 APs to double crit chance is a worthwhile cost IMO if one does not have the gear.

For instance a Sorc savant should definitely max out crit ranges for its savant line. The SP to damage cost is much better that way.

It's not that they are not valuable, but that there's other things more valuable to pick from.
At the very least you'll want the damage lines first, if you are taking two or three elements.
If you are focusing on a single element then yeah, you have room for raising the crit on it.

The AP pool is not really large, you may notice more on wizards because likely you can't take all the toys in a PrE.
The basic 4% is cheap at 1 AP, but the rest take 5 AP, more than a level of them, let alone the crit multiplier.

Without a lore item it'd take a lot of shoots to even notice a crit, and trash would be dying without them.
Thus is more valuable to just raise the damage and see the trash die with as less castings as possible.
On a boss is when you begin to wish you had more punch, but one may still go for overall power first.

Melees don't have to dose out or get picky on the targeting, they just need to swing faster.
Even then taking IC assumes you will have enough attack speed to make it worth, else you better pick something else.

[firemedium_jt]

Crit lines for a sorcerer savant are pre-reqs, so a sorc doesn't even have a choice. For other elements, it's mostly down to 7/1/1 in two more lines or 7/5/5 in one more line. You don't really have enough AP to go 7/5/5 in three lines, unless you sacrifice elsewhere. Sometimes having three elements is more efficient than two fully maxed elements. It's all very situational, but that's why most people go 7/1/1.

Many go 7/6/6 or 7/5/5 or 7/6/5 in two elements for DOTs to do alot of damage over time. Many seem to recommend Elect and ICE. I do too. If you invest Maximize and Empower on 2 DOTS worth 20 sp on a Boss that is a lot of sp if you stack 2 elements in a boss fight... and why would you not do that if you just rested before a boss fight? 2 Elements triple stacked with max metas and criticals will bring down a boss fast. Might not be the most efficient way to spend AP and SP, but is a very effective way. If you use Maximize worth 25 and Empower worth 15 to boost your DOTs (20sp base) it is not efficient, but it is more effective in combat. So is quicken. What makes these spells with all metas on more effective is the critical lines more so for DOTs with 16 seconds per cast than those with less timers on them. Oh and these spells have no save! and no spell resistance!, but can be elementally resisted against just like we do with ship buffs.

You could also argue that the first spell power tier is 40, so why spend one AP for just 10 more? And as that number gets greater from spell power gear then it becomes less.

Are you guys saying to go 7/1/1 in every element?

Just a novice here, but I like my DOTs. I got 7/6/6 in elect and ice and 1/0/0 in fire and acid. DOTs can do a lot of damage in a long boss fight. Like 3000 to 6000 over 36 seconds with just one element triple stacked. That is 6000 (gimp AH gear) to 12000 (epic gear) with 2 DOTs over 36 seconds if you max those 2 out. Elect and Ice @16 seconds are the longest running DOTs and have the longest time to get a Triple Stack in tactically against a single target. AOE elements are too short lived, can be evaded or avoided. Other DOTs have short timers of only 6-8 seconds. There is much less of a chance of critical going off on them.

Any epic numbers out there please show them.....

I am not a math expert, and a casual player, but I look outside the numbers with some of this stuff in terms of tactics, and real play vs. ideal.

You have to conserve SP, but for the end boss overwhelming force is a valid tactic in most miltary manuals and I think in a lot of End Boss fights in DDO. Are you invited into a party to kill mobs or bosses? IMHO a caster's job is soften up mobs with CC/AOE and kill bosses quickly.

I guess it is more about what spells you like to use and what you don't. Some are maybe more into kill count with mobs than completion rate.

IMHO, but that probably only worth about 2 cents.


Have not played with my Wiz in a while. What is up with the DOTs. Just noticed Eladar is 20 seconds and not stackable in its description, but not changed on wiki???

Niac's is the same description 2 seconds for 16 seconds.

[Jaid314]

spellpower is nice because it is an increase that can actually reduce the amount of time and SP it takes to kill groups of mobs.

spell crits don't do that. they help you kill specific individual mobs faster, which is nice... but often you're going to have other stuff you'd like to spend AP on as well. the difference for melee is that you're usually dealing with a single target anyways.

it was already explained. i throw a fireball. it hits 6 mobs. 1 of them dies to a crit, the rest are still at 1/2 life. i still have to cast a second fireball. it doesn't matter that there was a crit in there, i'm spending the same resources either way. if there was no crit, i would still have to cast a second fireball. the only way it makes a difference is if they were all crits, and the amount of crit chance available simply makes it implausible that i will get each of the 6 hits to crit at a time when it's actually important.

in comparison, suppose i cast a fireball that deals +100% damage vs only +90% damage, and suppose a fireball deals exactly half of a mob's health. at +100% i kill things in one shot. at +90% i now have to deal that last remaining little bit of health. obviously, it isn't quite that simple... the damage on a fireball is random, and the odds of a mob having exactly the amount of health as your fireball damage is going to be unlikely, but it does serve to demonstrate the point; an increase in spell power can reliably let you kill groups of enemies faster. an increase in spell critical helps for individuals, but does little if anything for dealing with groups.

given that, ime at least, the vast majority of difficulty in this game comes from groups of enemies, and given that sorcerers are one of the best classes for dealing with groups of enemies, specializing in killing groups of enemies is not a bad idea.

even raid bosses generally are not that tough, though that's gotten slightly less true lately. i mean, the stormreaver can disintegrate you for a lot of damage, true. but ultimately... imagine if reaver's fate didn't have the air elementals. imagine if there were no shadows in ToD part 2... how many times would that part fail? how dangerous is sully in VoD to a group that can handle aggro as compared to the fire bats or even the orthon/bearded devil waves? because last i checked, when the group is free to just DPS him down as fast as they like in ToD, he's barely even a challenge.

trash mobs kill people. raid bosses, at least in DDO, tend to be annoying high HP enemies that aren't so much challenging as they are really slow to kill.

[AtomicMew]

Many go 7/6/6 or 7/5/5 or 7/6/5 in two elements for DOTs to do alot of damage over time

For example, 7/6/6 in ice and electric, compared to 7/1/1, is better against Arraetrikos, but only marginally so. The difference is pretty small.

Now switch to demon queen. Demon queen is immune to electric, so the 7/6/6 you have in electric is irrelevant. Now, you wish you'd have 7/1/1 in ice/electric/acid, which is significantly better than 7/6/6 in ice/electric and 1/0/0 in acid.

It's just all very situational. But you can see how a 7/1/1 split into three elements actually does better in some situations. I think it should be pretty clear that on average the triple split does a whole lot better.

[Kinerd]

If this is true why do so many melee take improved critical feats?

Because they don't have anything stronger to spend a feat slot on. Especially with endgame having such a wide variety of resistances now, almost every player's wizard will be better off with two elements at 7/1/1 than one element at 7/5/4, or two 7/1/1 and two 1/0/0 than one 7/6/6. (Sorcerers of course don't have a real choice.)

Are you guys saying to go 7/1/1 in every element?

The trouble with going 7/6/6 in electric as a wizard is you're spending 19 AP on Eladar's Electric Surge. It's a good spell, but it's not that good a spell: Mariliths and Liches, for high value examples, are completely immune to it. The other big problem EES has is that you can't always keep a triple stack up: an annoying proportion of bosses have temporary invincibility/untargetability/phase out/etc. I'm not saying spend nothing in Electric, just that you would be a lot better off shuffling 10 of those AP over to Acid: Black Dragon Bolt is an excellent, excellent spell. Acid Rain isn't good for bosses, but it is dynamite for clearing a group of monsters quickly and efficiently when you can't or don't want to instant kill. Cloudkill is also pretty underrated.

[K_0tiC]

Wizard should be 7/1/1 for the good stuff ice/elec those 1/1 can be higher if you have some spare ap left. But I would rather spend them on say improved maximizing/quicken or something else to save more sp per cast then do a tiny amount of damage more. Since wizards cast such a mixed bag I dont see 7/6/6 being a good way to spend you ap as 50% or more of my sp bar is spent on instant kills which gain nothing from those damage/crit lines.
1/0/0 for the not so oftens

Sorc on the other hand should max main element for sure.

[SynalonEtuul]

Thank you for all the replies! I will probably go 7/1/1.

As a side note, lots of people seem to recommend going cold and electric, but why not cold and acid? Yeah, Eladar's is nice, but acid has black dragon bolt. Eladar's seems like literally the only draw for lightning, but acid has lots of great spells.

[donfilibuster]

As a side note, lots of people seem to recommend going cold and electric, but why not cold and acid? Yeah, Eladar's is nice, but acid has black dragon bolt. Eladar's seems like literally the only draw for lightning, but acid has lots of great spells.

Only water savants get to choose.