What feats are good on Warlock....?

[Violith]

Agreed, but this does not raise DC. It would raise spell penetration by +5.

There is also some question whether warlocks are actually arcane rather than primal. The warlock thread says primal but another poster pointed out that warlocks actually unlock the arcane destinies in game.

hopefully they go ahead and do what they were saying by adding caster levels in with epic levels rather then a specific ED. that way all spellcasters will eventually get 10caster levels and not have to be pigeoned holed into a destiny.

[Systern]

It wasn't you that I was agreeing with. You're welcome to build your warlock any way that you like, but you are trying to defend your choices with seriously faulty reasoning. 9 spellpower absolutely is immaterial: it is not a 9% increase in damage, it is a 1% increase in damage. Forcing monsters to fail saves vs higher CHA/DC will win out every time that you're on the die. And that's just EB damage, not even accoutnign for the other DC-affected spells.

Say you have 95% success, but no spell power and do 100 damage.
If you change things about so that you have 50% success rate, but 50 spell power:
50% of the time you're doing 150 damage. 50% of the time you're doing 150*.75 = 112.5 damage. In the long run, you're averaging 131.25 damage.

131.25 average damage > 100 average damage.
(.75 scaling because only the pact has a save, 100% base + 50% pact averages out... 9d6 + 13d4 is actually a 49.2/50.8 split, and is 102 average damage at level 20. )

It doesn't "win out every time".


Where those numbers change from "win" is in the spreadsheet I linked above.

[MrWindupBird]

Say you have 95% success, but no spell power and do 100 damage.
If you change things about so that you have 50% success rate, but 50 spell power:
50% of the time you're doing 150 damage. 50% of the time you're doing 150*.75 = 112.5 damage. In the long run, you're averaging 131.25 damage.

131.25 average damage > 100 average damage.
(.75 scaling because only the pact has a save, 100% base + 50% pact averages out... 9d6 + 13d4 is actually a 49.2/50.8 split, and is 102 average damage at level 20. )

It doesn't "win out every time".


Where those numbers change from "win" is in the spreadsheet I linked above.

If you want to have a serious conversation about this, maybe you should stop using 0 spellpower as your initial condition for an epic warlock.

Everything I stated is correct.

[Systern]

If you want to have a serious conversation about this, maybe you should stop using 0 spellpower as your initial condition for an epic warlock.

Everything I stated is correct.

The example still stands for illustration of the principle.


Is

"Say you have 95% success, and 270 spell power and do 372.68 damage.
If you change things about so that you have 90% success rate, but 280 spell power, you're averaging 377.91 damage.

377.91 average damage > 372.68 average damage.
(.75 scaling because only the pact has a save, 100% base + 50% pact averages out... 9d6 + 13d4 is actually a 49.2/50.8 split, and is 102 average damage at level 20. )

It doesn't "win out every time".

Better?

And that's if your DC is exactly at +19 to start with. If you're off the die and going from (e.g.) +25 to +24, you're at 382.76 average damage by trading a meaningless 1 DC for 10 spellpower.

Taking Slarden's example of 62.5 DC in EA and 440 spellpower, if that's 95%, he's pumping out around 543.91 damage.
Say instead he goes into Fatesinger, uses Aria and twists in the EA T1 light spell power abil. He drops to 60.5 DC (85%), but jumps to 510 spell power, and averages 598.87...

[slarden]

Taking Slarden's example of 62.5 DC in EA and 440 spellpower, if that's 95%, he's pumping out around 543.91 damage.
Say instead he goes into Fatesinger, uses Aria and twists in the EA T1 light spell power abil. He drops to 60.5 DC (85%), but jumps to 510 spell power, and averages 598.87...

Wait a sec that wasn't my example. The 62.5 DC was my example of a DC caster in shiradi and that was the enchant DC not the eldritch blast DC. The caster loses 7 DC compared to EA where the DC is 69.5.

Switching to Fatesinger costs me 4 DC, 3 spell penetration, self healing, divine wrath, etc. Spellpower isn't the only important measure and not all benefits can be mathematically compared in Excel.

The EA build is in my sig.

[Systern]

Wait a sec that wasn't my example. The 62.5 DC was my example of a DC caster in shiradi and that was the enchant DC not the eldritch blast DC. The caster loses 7 DC compared to EA where the DC is 69.5.

Switching to Fatesinger costs me 4 DC, 3 spell penetration, self healing, divine wrath, etc. Spellpower isn't the only important measure and not all benefits can be mathematically compared in Excel.

The EA build is in my sig.

So we've gone from "You're wrong. the math never works out" to "math in excel isn't the only important thing"? Now who's moving the goal posts? :P


When do we go to "Hey Systern, I see what you're saying now. You're right. This is something else I can take under consideration when planning my builds."?

[slarden]

So we've gone from "You're wrong. the math never works out" to "math in excel isn't the only important thing"? Now who's moving the goal posts? :P


When do we go to "Hey Systern, I see what you're saying now. You're right. This is something else I can take under consideration when planning my builds."?

I don't dislike your int shiradi build idea - I just consider it a dc-dumping build but you don't see it that way.

Your math is faulty but I've given up on trying to discuss that with you. You keep including things in your math that have nothing to do with the point on hand and count it as a benefit of your argument. We should just agree to disagree there.

My point on comparing EA to Fatespinger specifically is that you can't just measure all the benefits on of EA and Fatesinger by spellpower. They both offer other advantages and most of choice is personal preference. I would never choose fatesinger over exalted angel, but you can't put those pluses and minuses into a math formula.

The comparison between EA and Shiradi is fairly straightforward - DCs for other spells vs. DPS. I wouldn't want to get into an EA vs. Fatesinger discussion - I would never consider fatesinger.

[Systern]

I don't dislike your int shiradi build idea - I just consider it a dc-dumping build but you don't see it that way.

Your math is faulty but I've given up on trying to discuss that with you. You keep including things in your math that have nothing to do with the point on hand and count it as a benefit of your argument. We should just agree to disagree there.

My point on comparing EA to Fatespinger specifically is that you can't just measure all the benefits on of EA and Fatesinger by spellpower. They both offer other advantages and most of choice is personal preference. I would never choose fatesinger over exalted angel, but you can't put those pluses and minuses into a math formula.

The comparison between EA and Shiradi is fairly straightforward - DCs for other spells vs. DPS. I wouldn't want to get into an EA vs. Fatesinger discussion - I would never consider fatesinger.

I guess this is the last way I can think to say this...

With DCs, plus or minus 2 charisma when you've over shot the die doesn't help. plus or minus 2 charisma when you've undershot the die doesn't help. Being on the die, of course, is the best case scenario.
With spellpower, the die doesn't matter, it always has a benefit. Best case scenario of being on the die is flexible on where exactly you are on the die depending on spellpower.

So, don't stress the DCs, especially in the case of this pew pewwy int goo. Your efficacy scales based on spellpower. It's not like a spellsinger or PM where you pass or fail based on DC.
Also, Warlock only having the save on pact damage means that you don't have to be as black and white as a shiradi sorc. It's not "I'll never make the DC and always do 50% or No damage unless I just use DC-less spells". Failing a save hurts less (for GOOs).
So warlock isn't as black and white as either extreme: PMs, nor Shiradi Sorc. They have more grey area. And when in doubt, more spellpower always helps.


In your examples you first, straight out said that you want to be a "CC-bot" in parties, which does put more priority on pass or fail dcs.
I just wanna blow shiz up. So, I'm fine staying in the grey.

[MrWindupBird]

The example still stands for illustration of the principle.


Is
"Say you have 95% success, and 270 spell power and do 372.68 damage.
If you change things about so that you have 90% success rate, but 280 spell power, you're averaging 377.91 damage.

377.91 average damage > 372.68 average damage.
(.75 scaling because only the pact has a save, 100% base + 50% pact averages out... 9d6 + 13d4 is actually a 49.2/50.8 split, and is 102 average damage at level 20. )

It doesn't "win out every time".
Better?

And that's if your DC is exactly at +19 to start with. If you're off the die and going from (e.g.) +25 to +24, you're at 382.76 average damage by trading a meaningless 1 DC for 10 spellpower.

Taking Slarden's example of 62.5 DC in EA and 440 spellpower, if that's 95%, he's pumping out around 543.91 damage.
Say instead he goes into Fatesinger, uses Aria and twists in the EA T1 light spell power abil. He drops to 60.5 DC (85%), but jumps to 510 spell power, and averages 598.87...

So, you think that trading 2 Cha for 2 int loses you 1 DC but gains you 10 spellpower? Do tell.
Your calculations are literally off by an order of magnitude.

If you want to play a shiradi int-based Warlock, fantastic, that's your prerogative. I have no issue with that. You are however, flat-out-wrong in all the trade-offs you are presenting. You get credit for multiplying correctly, but the numbers you chose are pure fantasy.

I guess this is the last way I can think to say this...

With DCs, plus or minus 2 charisma when you've over shot the die doesn't help. plus or minus 2 charisma when you've undershot the die doesn't help. Being on the die, of course, is the best case scenario.
With spellpower, the die doesn't matter, it always has a benefit. Best case scenario of being on the die is flexible on where exactly you are on the die depending on spellpower.

So, don't stress the DCs, especially in the case of this pew pewwy int goo. Your efficacy scales based on spellpower. It's not like a spellsinger or PM where you pass or fail based on DC.
Also, Warlock only having the save on pact damage means that you don't have to be as black and white as a shiradi sorc. It's not "I'll never make the DC and always do 50% or No damage unless I just use DC-less spells". Failing a save hurts less (for GOOs).
So warlock isn't as black and white as either extreme: PMs, nor Shiradi Sorc. They have more grey area. And when in doubt, more spellpower always helps.


In your examples you first, straight out said that you want to be a "CC-bot" in parties, which does put more priority on pass or fail dcs.
I just wanna blow shiz up. So, I'm fine staying in the grey.

Int-based shiradi warlock is absolutely workable, and if you just flat-out do not want to care about landing any spells whatsoever it will work fine. There are benefits to going int-based, they are just far smaller than what you are attempting to show, and they don't outweigh the costs even in the narrowest possible interpretation.

If it helps, the reason that sorcs can go int-based in shiradi with no compunction that there is literally no DC-based spell that matters for them (Eburst works Int/Cha, so it is a wash). This is inherently untrue of warlocks due to blast. Happy warlocking.

[richieelias27]

I guess this is the last way I can think to say this...

With DCs, plus or minus 2 charisma when you've over shot the die doesn't help. plus or minus 2 charisma when you've undershot the die doesn't help. Being on the die, of course, is the best case scenario.
With spellpower, the die doesn't matter, it always has a benefit. Best case scenario of being on the die is flexible on where exactly you are on the die depending on spellpower.

So, don't stress the DCs, especially in the case of this pew pewwy int goo. Your efficacy scales based on spellpower. It's not like a spellsinger or PM where you pass or fail based on DC.
Also, Warlock only having the save on pact damage means that you don't have to be as black and white as a shiradi sorc. It's not "I'll never make the DC and always do 50% or No damage unless I just use DC-less spells". Failing a save hurts less (for GOOs).
So warlock isn't as black and white as either extreme: PMs, nor Shiradi Sorc. They have more grey area. And when in doubt, more spellpower always helps.


In your examples you first, straight out said that you want to be a "CC-bot" in parties, which does put more priority on pass or fail dcs.
I just wanna blow shiz up. So, I'm fine staying in the grey.

I tried to argue that exact same point back when he was trying to say "Warlocks must build for evocation, because pact save"...

You can imagine how much actually sunk in.

[Systern]

So, you think that trading 2 Cha for 2 int loses you 1 DC but gains you 10 spellpower? Do tell.
Your calculations are literally off by an order of magnitude.

If you want to play a shiradi int-based Warlock, fantastic, that's your prerogative. I have no issue with that. You are however, flat-out-wrong in all the trade-offs you are presenting. You get credit for multiplying correctly, but the numbers you chose are pure fantasy.





Int-based shiradi warlock is absolutely workable, and if you just flat-out do not want to care about landing any spells whatsoever it will work fine. There are benefits to going int-based, they are just far smaller than what you are attempting to show, and they don't outweigh the costs even in the narrowest possible interpretation.

If it helps, the reason that sorcs can go int-based in shiradi with no compunction that there is literally no DC-based spell that matters for them (Eburst works Int/Cha, so it is a wash). This is inherently untrue of warlocks due to blast. Happy warlocking.

What I do think is that overshooting the die is the worst scenario for a GOO, it provides no benefit.
Being anywhere on the die with greater spell power is generally better for you.*
Undershooting the die with greater spell power provides benefits. Maybe not optimal, but you're not throwing resources down the drain.

If your goal is to be on the die, but absolutely not overshoot it, what can you limit?
Itemization: "I'll take off my (Epic) Sage's Locket for..." what? Itemization is the largest single source of spellpower so you should already have slotted it.
Feats: "I'll drop GSF: Evo for..." what? Skill Focus: Spellcraft is only +3, you may have already taken it, and there's not a lot of great feats for you to choose from.
Destiny: Flexibility here, (picking on poor Slarden again) do things like not buy the stats in the destiny and get abilities instead, but the amount of available USP/TypedSP in Destinies is limited.
Enhancements: Greater flexibility here, but gating requirements may limit your choices.
Ability points: The most easily sacrificable, always provides some benefit to spellpower, and this small benefit may make the difference between shifting about some AP or other resource to hit a meaningful milestone.

Considerations:
Blast will always have +3 DC over other spells because it is considered a level 9 spell.
GOOs use will saves, which is a lower target DC.
Chain Blast is brokenly overpowered. Cone is ok. Focused is just broken since you can't aim it and too frustrating to use.
I will have access to no-save slows in Faltering Blast and Evard's Black Tentacles.
Investing heavily into the Harper tree makes picking up Moment of Clarity an easy choice. Having that safety net available means that it's easier to walk around with DCs that only land most of the time, since I can boost it when I need it. Not having Moment of Clarity available probably means that the build would want higher DCs overall because they don't have the contingency plan.



*The numbers in the chart are an approximation of average damage. The .75 spwr scaling from chain/cone shape has been factored out of the numbers. Similar to reducing fractions (3/6 = 1/2), or exactly like simplifying polynomial division (2ab/2a = b). Similarly, spell crit chance and damage scaling has been factored out. Your exact numbers for your exact build will vary.

If your DC is so far to the left (+20), that -2 DC doesn't move you to the right, going down 2 cells is always a bigger number.
If your DC is so far to the right (<= +1), that you can't move any further to the right, going down 2 cells is always a bigger number.
If you're anywhere in the top 2/3rds of the chart, going right 2 and down 2 is always a bigger number.
If you're in the bottom 1/3rd of the chart, the only way you're getting that much spell power is by level 28 gear, and then you can make the assumption that you've taken the new EEB and EAEB feats which add more no-fail base dice, diminishing the impact of a failed save, and once again, going right 2, down 2 is a bigger number.

"But your numbers are pure fantasy! trading 2 DC is not always an increase of 10 spell power!" First, you sound hostile. Second, I know this. Evaluate the exact change to your build yourself. I'm trying to teach a generalization, and get people out of the mind set: "Making the DC wins out every time." by demonstrating that, in fact, it doesn't. This also contests the Shiradi Sorc mentality that you have to dump DCs entirely.


(Upon reflection and this argument, I think I need to apologize to the Devs. Characterizing the class as a "complete train wreck" was unfair and colored by my disappointment and frustration that the targetting system won't be fixed. I still believe that Chain Blast is OP, Focused blast is too frustrating to use, and the class is boring to actually play. I also believe that build options don't really matter that much, and that a new character and 25 life completionist have the exact same slow, insufferable play experience at level 1. But at the very least, I'm having fun with this theory-crafting debate.)

[Systern]

I tried to argue that exact same point back when he was trying to say "Warlocks must build for evocation, because pact save"...

You can imagine how much actually sunk in.

And my response that Focused blast was unusable, and chain blast made CC and other DCs irrelevant...

That didn't sink in either.

[Requiro]

Guys… I don’t understand that debate at all. Systern just trying to prove that:
• IF you have already 95% chance with your spell DC, there is no need to pump it more.
• IF you have 95% chance with your spell DC , the best way to improve you damage in EB is to invest to spellcraft by putting ADDITIONAL (above 95%) points in INT.
And he is general right. In theory.

The big questions, that can’t be answered are:
• WHEN you get that 95% chance with your spell DC?
• It is worth to take risk for not 95% is you are wrong for so little additional damage (1-3%)?
• It is worth to minimize great part of Warlock like some abilities or spells, for so little additional damage(1-3%)?

1st question can’t be 100% sure answered, because even best DDO players don’t know EXACLY when you get 95% on each quest, and each monster in game. Additional every update add some new quest, and sometimes mechanic (abilities) upgrades.
2nd and 3rd are personal choice, thus cannot be answered by math or argument. Some people like risk and lottery, other like big numbers, and others what to be sure that spells land every time, even if that COULD be overkill.

This discussion remind me other problem: To be DEX or STR ranged character :-)

[ThrakThor]

I am right in thinking chain blast did not make it to live ? I cannot find it and cannot recall which tree it was (GOO is where I recall but my memory is not always to be relied upon). I can see they fixed the targeting which is good and I think they replaced it with wave but I wanted to check.

Cheers.

[Vargouille]

I am right in thinking chain blast did not make it to live ? I cannot find it and cannot recall which tree it was (GOO is where I recall but my memory is not always to be relied upon). I can see they fixed the targeting which is good and I think they replaced it with wave but I wanted to check.

Cheers.

Eldritch Chain is a tier 2 Tainted Scholar enhancement.

[ThrakThor]

Eldritch Chain is a tier 2 Tainted Scholar enhancement.

Thank you kindly for responding