Cetus: Supreme Bladeforged Fighter Reborn

[Cetus]

You don't need Monk levels to use Dance of Flowers. Pure fighter with One with the Blade and no armor on still gets +1.5W

Also the AP that you didn't put in Ninja spy would be spent elsewhere. Possibly Great Weapon Aptitude, Weapon Attachment, Communion of Handling, and +2 INT.

Really, dance of flowers works on pure?

There's not much more DPS you can gain that would match fists of iron and 2d6 SA damage. Weapon attachment is worthless.

You still have the earth strikes, +1 19/20 multiplier, evasion, huge amount of dodge, and extra feat to deal with.

Like I said, it felt very close. But, my opinion stands in favor of 18/2. They're both very powerful if built correctly.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

What about the +1.5[w]? That should help quite a bit.

Also why the Esos? Did something change to it recently? If not I don't really think it's in competition.

yea that too

for single target dps against anything that actually has hp? its not in the competition. against legendary trash however...

[unbongwah]

You don't need Monk levels to use Dance of Flowers. Pure fighter with One with the Blade and no armor on still gets +1.5W

IIRC, you also need to twist Enlightenment to gain a ki bar on a non-monk build: no ki, no centering. And you can't take Adept / Master of Forms w/out monk lvls, which means no crit bonus from Earth stance.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

Really, dance of flowers works on pure?

There's not much more DPS you can gain that would match fists of iron and 2d6 SA damage. Weapon attachment is worthless.

You still have the earth strikes, +1 19/20 multiplier, evasion, huge amount of dodge, and extra feat to deal with.

Like I said, it felt very close. But, my opinion stands in favor of 18/2. They're both very powerful if built correctly.

yes, it works on pure, but imo its not worth it on a pure because you would have to give up heavy armor (and the associated prr and hp) which isnt worth +1.5[w]

[the_one_dwarfforged]

All good questions, yes I have played a pure fighter extensively prior to deciding on the 18/2 split - they are very close in DPS and defenses, but I am firmly set on 18/2 as being the superior build. Here's why:

Pure fighter capstone: The main draw is 15% doublestrike. Outside of part 1 of shroud, I don't miss the 4 extra action boosts at all - and even in part 1 of shroud, draconic reinvigoration makes them last.

So, it's 15% doublestrike and +2 str/int (KTA) vs. +1 19/20 crit multiplier, 1.5W from dance of flowers, 2d6 sneak attack damage from ninja spy, +2 melee power (extra feat from 2 monk), fists of iron (+3 W, +1 threat, +1 multiplier every 3 seconds), adept + master strikes of the enduring (when worked in with fists of iron, can use the triple earth finisher for 2 multiplier as well).

As far as defenses go, yes the pure fighter can take advantage of the stalwart hitpoints and heavy armor PRR - however, my monk version has roughly 18% more dodge than I did on the pure fighter.

My PRR atm is about a 143 with blitz (however, this is tentative gear - I only have 38 sheltering atm, no insightful sheltering). A pure fighter would probably have at most 10% more mitigation from PRR, but I have about 18% more dodge.

The evasion is ABSOLUTELY noticeable. The red named casters and all the mephits casting their **** on me was essentially ignored. I'm running like a high 70's reflex save and it's awesome for this stuff.

Sorjek:

It's a mixed result with him, sometimes it goes smoother if I get lucky with dodge and footwork. About 30% of the time I can survive a hit from his sword - but I'm usually about 100-200 hitpoints away from making it when he one-shots me. That's just a simple hitpoints/PRR thing that I can account for with gear that I have not sorted out yet.

yea the monk clickies add up, but i mean have you actually compared times against bosses with pure and 18/2? i just dont see monk being better single target, but maybe the difference isnt as significant as i imagine it to be.

yea 143 prr, sounds painfully low to me T_T that 10% more you get from having ~230 prr really makes a big difference at times..cough cough sorjek (30% survival rate vs 100% is significant)

[Cetus]

yea the monk clickies add up, but i mean have you actually compared times against bosses with pure and 18/2? i just dont see monk being better single target, but maybe the difference isnt as significant as i imagine it to be.

yea 143 prr, sounds painfully low to me T_T that 10% more you get from having ~230 prr really makes a big difference at times..cough cough sorjek (30% survival rate vs 100% is significant)

100% survival rate? Lol...I'd like to see you do that end fight on video. Your 230 PRR absorbs roughly 10% more damage. The monk dodge cap is like 20+ points higher. Also keep in mind, I'm nowhere near tweaked out for PRR yet.

Anyway, you won't get the spellpower/repair amp to top yourself off with one recon at 2000 hitpoints. So, two hits from sorjek and you're dead anyway.

And yes, I have compared times against the DPS kobolds on lamannia as I've already mentioned. I stand by the 18/2 split as all around better by a margin.

[Axeyu]

Your 230 PRR absorbs roughly 10% more damage.

I find that misleading, and I don't know if you realise why.

PRR math:
100/(100+143) = 0,412
100/(100+230) = 0,303

You can phrase the results differently, but the IMO best way to look at it is that 143 PRR takes 36% more damage than 230 PRR.
Another way is to look at the absorbed damage like you did, but unless you do a relative comparison, just subtractring the PRR formulas is misleading when you phrase it the way you do.
230 PRR absorbs 1-0,303=0,697 of the damage
143 PRR absorbs 1-0,412=0,588 of the damage
0,697/0,588=1,185. Thus 230 PRR absorbs roughly 19% more damage.

[vyvy3369]

100% survival rate? Lol...I'd like to see you do that end fight on video. Your 230 PRR absorbs roughly 10% more damage. The monk dodge cap is like 20+ points higher. Also keep in mind, I'm nowhere near tweaked out for PRR yet.

Anyway, you won't get the spellpower/repair amp to top yourself off with one recon at 2000 hitpoints. So, two hits from sorjek and you're dead anyway.

And yes, I have compared times against the DPS kobolds on lamannia as I've already mentioned. I stand by the 18/2 split as all around better by a margin.

With higher PRR he doesn't hit for 2000 though. I usually run that fight with 1750ish HP and almost always survive one hit. My recon hits for 1505. If he hits a second time before your recon goes off, then sure, you're dead. I'm hopeful that between the U32 gear and/or finding space for an LGS HP set I can cram in enough HP to be able to reach survivable HP after a single recon.

You keep mentioning the dodge cap being so much higher, but don't forget about the lost AC either. In Adamantine Body, my dodge is currently at 10 with minimal investment, and I'm assuming yours is 25ish. I know a lot of people like to say AC doesn't help, but it absolutely does if you can get it into reasonably high values. Based on wiki #s, LE Sor'jek to-hit is probably 165ish. Taking the 150 column on the wiki's AC chart as an example, going from 80 to 90 would add 11% miss chance, 120 to 130 5%, 150 to 160 4%, etc. Yes, lighter armor's dodge bonus is still going to add more avoidance than the higher AC does, but it's not as simple as just looking at the different dodge values.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

100% survival rate? Lol...I'd like to see you do that end fight on video. Your 230 PRR absorbs roughly 10% more damage. The monk dodge cap is like 20+ points higher. Also keep in mind, I'm nowhere near tweaked out for PRR yet.

Anyway, you won't get the spellpower/repair amp to top yourself off with one recon at 2000 hitpoints. So, two hits from sorjek and you're dead anyway.

And yes, I have compared times against the DPS kobolds on lamannia as I've already mentioned. I stand by the 18/2 split as all around better by a margin.

Yes...100% survival of every melee attack he makes. If he double strikes yea, Imy dead. If he attacks before I get a recon off I'm dead. I still find being guaranteed to survive one hit without even lgs hp to be good enough for that fight without resorting to extremes. Now if you meant you survive a single hit 100% of the time with 143 prr and the entire fight with no deaths 30% of the time, then that prr becomes less terrifyingly low to me. I understand the Dodge cap, it does not concern me really, it's a perk, not something you can count on.

I thought I read your kobold tests were falcon very axe. You're saying they were beating pure fighter times? That would really make things interesting to me.

[Cetus]

I find that misleading, and I don't know if you realise why.

PRR math:
100/(100+143) = 0,412
100/(100+230) = 0,303

You can phrase the results differently, but the IMO best way to look at it is that 143 PRR takes 36% more damage than 230 PRR.
Another way is to look at the absorbed damage like you did, but unless you do a relative comparison, just subtractring the PRR formulas is misleading when you phrase it the way you do.
230 PRR absorbs 1-0,303=0,697 of the damage
143 PRR absorbs 1-0,412=0,588 of the damage
0,697/0,588=1,185. Thus 230 PRR absorbs roughly 19% more damage.

The PRR formula gives you a multiplier by which you'd modify the incoming damage. So, lets say sorjek would hit for 4000 damage with 0 PRR.

100 / 100+0 = 1*4000 = 4000 = full damage taken

100 / 100 + 143 = 0.41 *4000 = 1646 damage taken

100 / 100 + 230 = 1212 damage taken

The difference between your incoming damage and my incoming damage on that attack would be 1646 - 1212 = roughly 400 damage

What's 10% of 4000? 400....

So no, there's nothing misleading. The math is very simple. You're taking approximately 10% less damage. I'm not minimizing the importance of that, after-all, it's 400 points of damage on a 4K attack. I'm just saying that it's 10%. I don't know where you're pulling the 19%/36% out of...

With higher PRR he doesn't hit for 2000 though. I usually run that fight with 1750ish HP and almost always survive one hit. My recon hits for 1505. If he hits a second time before your recon goes off, then sure, you're dead. I'm hopeful that between the U32 gear and/or finding space for an LGS HP set I can cram in enough HP to be able to reach survivable HP after a single recon.

Yea, I mostly get hit for about 17-2000 by him, while running 2080 HP with a toven cookie. It all depends if random lightning strikes haven't softened me up before his attack comes in, or if my blitz hasn't run out which would cost 30 PRR. In either case, the PRR on this build is nowhere near finished. I can easily work in legendary heartwood if I want to drop a bit of damage and respec a twist and hit 200 PRR on this build. But, this is primarily a DPS build - so I'm not doing that.

You keep mentioning the dodge cap being so much higher, but don't forget about the lost AC either. In Adamantine Body, my dodge is currently at 10 with minimal investment, and I'm assuming yours is 25ish. I know a lot of people like to say AC doesn't help, but it absolutely does if you can get it into reasonably high values. Based on wiki #s, LE Sor'jek to-hit is probably 165ish. Taking the 150 column on the wiki's AC chart as an example, going from 80 to 90 would add 11% miss chance, 120 to 130 5%, 150 to 160 4%, etc. Yes, lighter armor's dodge bonus is still going to add more avoidance than the higher AC does, but it's not as simple as just looking at the different dodge values.

This is true, AC does offer some misses. However, I haven't begun to consider it given the relatively low impact with displacement/dodge/ghostly overlap.

Yes...100% survival of every melee attack he makes. If he double strikes yea, Imy dead. If he attacks before I get a recon off I'm dead. I still find being guaranteed to survive one hit without even lgs hp to be good enough for that fight without resorting to extremes. Now if you meant you survive a single hit 100% of the time with 143 prr and the entire fight with no deaths 30% of the time, then that prr becomes less terrifyingly low to me. I understand the Dodge cap, it does not concern me really, it's a perk, not something you can count on.

I thought I read your kobold tests were falcon very axe. You're saying they were beating pure fighter times? That would really make things interesting to me.

Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing a video to see how reliable your survivability is. I'd also like to see how your damage output holds up in the face of your high defenses. I'm not so concerned with Sorjek personally, as this is predominantly built for DPS. I typically take the risk and try to jump around - not radically changing my build for one boss who I two-man on a regular basis anyway.

[Axeyu]

The PRR formula gives you a multiplier by which you'd modify the incoming damage. So, lets say sorjek would hit for 4000 damage with 0 PRR.

100 / 100+0 = 1*4000 = 4000 = full damage taken

100 / 100 + 143 = 0.41 *4000 = 1646 damage taken

100 / 100 + 230 = 1212 damage taken

The difference between your incoming damage and my incoming damage on that attack would be 1646 - 1212 = roughly 400 damage

What's 10% of 4000? 400....

So no, there's nothing misleading. The math is very simple. You're taking approximately 10% less damage. I'm not minimizing the importance of that, after-all, it's 400 points of damage on a 4K attack. I'm just saying that it's 10%. I don't know where you're pulling the 19%/36% out of...

It is misleading to present the difference between taking 1646 damage and taking 1212 damage to be only 10%. That implies that 1212 is 10% less than 1646, which it is clearly not. It implies that you can increase your HP by 10% and get the same increase in EHP as going from 142 to 230 PRR, which is also false.
What useful information exactly is conveyed in the 10% figure?

The 36% means that if you have 210 PRR you can survive a hit that deals 36% more damage than a hit that would kill you with 143 PRR. In other words every hit you take with 143 PRR takes 36% more HP from your HP bar than if you had 210 PRR. That is a useful number. The 10% however is not.

Your 10% comes from the following, even though you did take an indirect route:
100/(100 + PRR1)-100/(100 + PRR2), where PRR1 is the lower PRR and PRR2 is the higher.

To see even more clearly how that is a terrible way to compare PRR values lets use different values for PRR 1 and 2, say PRR1 = 809 and PRR2 9900.
Using your method:
100 / 100+0 = 1*4000 = 4000 = full damage taken

100 / 100 + 809 = 0.11 *4000 = 440 damage taken

100 / 100 + 9900 = 40 damage taken

The difference between your incoming damage and my incoming damage on that attack would be 440 - 40 = roughly 400 damage

What's 10% of 4000? 400....

Now, would you honestly say that the difference between a build that takes 440 damage per hit and one that takes 40 damage per hit is 10%, and that if you have 9900 PRR it only absorbs 10% more damage over having 809 PRR? Or do you see that this method is problematic and misleading?

[Cetus]

It is misleading to present the difference between taking 1646 damage and taking 1212 damage to be only 10%. That implies that 1212 is 10% less than 1646, which it is clearly not. It implies that you can increase your HP by 10% and get the same increase in EHP as going from 142 to 230 PRR, which is also false.
What useful information exactly is conveyed in the 10% figure?

The 36% means that if you have 210 PRR you can survive a hit that deals 36% more damage than a hit that would kill you with 143 PRR. In other words every hit you take with 143 PRR takes 36% more HP from your HP bar than if you had 210 PRR. That is a useful number. The 10% however is not.

Your 10% comes from the following, even though you did take an indirect route:
100/(100 + PRR1)-100/(100 + PRR2), where PRR1 is the lower PRR and PRR2 is the higher.

To see even more clearly how that is a terrible way to compare PRR values lets use different values for PRR 1 and 2, say PRR1 = 809 and PRR2 9900.
Using your method:
100 / 100+0 = 1*4000 = 4000 = full damage taken

100 / 100 + 809 = 0.11 *4000 = 440 damage taken

100 / 100 + 9900 = 40 damage taken

The difference between your incoming damage and my incoming damage on that attack would be 440 - 40 = roughly 400 damage

What's 10% of 4000? 400....

Now, would you honestly say that the difference between a build that takes 440 damage per hit and one that takes 40 damage per hit is 10%, and that if you have 9900 PRR it only absorbs 10% more damage over having 809 PRR? Or do you see that this method is problematic and misleading?

I'm not taking the time to reiterate simple mathematics. I'm sure most folks reading this understand the difference between a 143 and 230 PRR.

[Axeyu]

I'm not taking the time to reiterate simple mathematics. I'm sure most folks reading this understand the difference between a 143 and 230 PRR.

You say that, but you have just shown that you don't even understand the difference. I strongly recommend that you take the time to go over the math. It's simple, but not as simple as you think.

I have noticed that it's common for people to not fully understand the PRR mechanics. It's counter intuitive that there is no diminishing returns even though the first 100 PRR increases the displayed number more than going from 100 to 200.

PRR becomes easier to handle when you realise that 1 PRR = 1% EHP. So in this case you would be comparing a 143% EHP "bonus" to a 230% EHP bonus.

[Cetus]

You say that, but you have just shown that you don't even understand the difference. I strongly recommend that you take the time to go over the math. It's simple, but not as simple as you think.

I have noticed that it's common for people to not fully understand the PRR mechanics. It's counter intuitive that there is no diminishing returns even though the first 100 PRR increases the displayed number more than going from 100 to 200.

PRR becomes easier to handle when you realise that 1 PRR = 1% EHP. So in this case you would be comparing a 143% EHP bonus to a 230% EHP bonus.

Lol, I'm quite confident that I understand the mechanics as I've just spelled them out to you. Thanks for the input though.

[Axeyu]

Lol, I'm quite confident that I understand the mechanics as I've just spelled them out to you. Thanks for the input though.

What you spelled out very clearly showed a lack of understanding. That you can put numbers in the formula does not mean you understand what you are doing.
I proved to you that your method of evaluating and presenting PRR comparisons leads to the difference between 143 and 230 PRR being the same as the difference between 809 and 9900 PRR. You don't have to be a genious to see that that's not right.

Please tell me, what useful information is conveyed in the 10% number you cite?

[Cetus]

What you spelled out very clearly showed a lack of understanding. That you can put numbers in the formula does not mean you understand what you are doing.
I proved to you that your method of evaluating and presenting PRR comparisons leads to the difference between 143 and 230 PRR being the same as the difference between 809 and 9900 PRR. You don't have to be a genious to see that that's not right.

Please tell me, what useful information is conveyed in the 10% number you cite?

It shows you how much of an incoming damage difference that 87 PRR translates into, given the [230-143] bracket, which is about 10%.

If I had 30 PRR, and you had 117 - that's also an 87 PRR difference - but in this case:

100/130 = .77 * 4000 sorjek hit = 3076

100/217 = .46 * 4000 sorjek hit = 1843

It's not 10% anymore. See the difference yet?

[Axeyu]

It shows you how much of an incoming damage difference that 87 PRR translates into, given the [230-143] bracket, which is about 10%.

If I had 30 PRR, and you had 117 - that's also an 87 PRR difference - but in this case:

100/130 = .77 * 4000 sorjek hit = 3076

100/217 = .46 * 4000 sorjek hit = 1843

It's not 10% anymore. See the difference yet?

It's a misleading way to display that difference in because, as I shown, getting an additional 9100 PRR when you have 800 would show the exact same result. That means that the number is pointless.

There is a difference between "build A takes 10% less damage than build B" and "build A takes 10 percentage units of the mobs base damage less than build B". If you cannot see the difference try it out with build B at 90% damage reduction.

As to your new example. The first build takes 3076 damage and the other takes 1843 damage. Therefore the first build takes 3076/1843= 1.67 = 67% more damage then the other build.
Your method would give 0.77-0.46 =0.31 = 31 % more damage.
Both are correct, but I say your method is misleading because it's not 31% more damage than the other build, as one would expect, instead its 31 percentage units of the mobs base damage more damage than the other build.
I also don't see how that number is interesting so I find your method rather pointless.


PRR works essentially the same way as melee power, so compare 143 Vs 230 PRR just as you would compare 143 vs 230 MP.

[Cetus]

It's a misleading way to display that difference in because, as I shown, getting an additional 9100 PRR when you have 800 would show the exact same result. That means that the number is pointless.

There is a difference between "build A takes 10% less damage than build B" and "build A takes 10 percentage units of the mobs base damage less than build B". If you cannot see the difference try it out with build B at 90% damage reduction.


Another way that may be helpful to you is to understand that PRR works just like melee power.

As to your new example, the correct way to evaluate the damage taken would be to just simply compare them. The first build takes 3076 damage and the other takes 1843 damage. Therefor the first build takes 3076/1843= 1.67 = 67% more damage then the other build.
Your method would give 0.77-0.46 =0.31 = 31 % more damage.
Both are correct, but I say your method is misleading because it's not 31% more damage than the other build, as one would expect, instead its 31 percentage units of the mobs base damage more damage than the other build.
I also don't see how that number is interesting so I also find your method rather pointless.

Alright, I think I've made myself clear.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing a video to see how reliable your survivability is. I'd also like to see how your damage output holds up in the face of your high defenses. I'm not so concerned with Sorjek personally, as this is predominantly built for DPS. I typically take the risk and try to jump around - not radically changing my build for one boss who I two-man on a regular basis anyway.

if i find myself in game and in a le ts i will make a video just for you babe. i survive single hits every single time though, or at least close enough that i dont remember dying from a single physical attack from sorjek (i dont actually remember if the lightning can take me out or not but i am thinking no?). obviously i can still die in that boss fight, seeing as i can only reliably survive a single hit. what concerns me as a prospective user of what seems like a potentially less boring build than pure fighter is that apparently your prr+hp (currently, whatever) is not enough to guarantee surviving a single hit from sorjek. thats all that i care about in that fight, because after that staying alive is mostly a matter of game mechanics and not stats or builds (unless you went full ****** tank or something, which im not interested in). can i survive the entire boss fight without dying? yes. can you? im sure even with the lower defenses, because really its about manipulating circumstances to not be hit (the primary and most effective means of which for a melee is letting someone else have aggro...which based on your video title and comment here is i assume how you regularly handle this fight. which is fine, though i feel a bit disingenuous to ambiguously associate with build performance, of any build). in fact im thinking that your build with more focus on burst/clickies is significantly better at a hit and run approach to the fight, seeing as the sustained dps of a fighter build is highly likely to pull aggro (usually) and that really is what is most detrimental to a melee here.

[Relenthe]

Alright, I think I've made myself clear.

Have you? It would be great if you could actualy read Axeyu's post when he made it clear that every point of PRR is as valuable as the previous.