Grading At-Will Powers

[MwaO]

Actually the +1 damage and -1 to hit is almost perfectly identical vs AC 20.

Let's use a longsword (+3) and give STR of 18 (+4) and WIS of 12 (+1). In reality, you'd probably have a better WIS if you're a STR-Pal, making this comparison a bit unrealistic. But just for the sake comparing ...

DPR:
Holy Strike [7 x 9.5] + 13(crit) = 79.5; 79.5/20=3.975
Valiant Strike [8 x 8.5] + 12(crit) = 80; 80/20=4.000

Now let's make it a WIS of +2
Holy Strike [7 x 10.5] + 14(crit) = 87.5; 86.5/20=4.375

Now WIS of +3
Holy Strike [7 x 11.5] + 15(crit) = 95.5; 95.5/20= 4.775

Let's make the comparison a little more realistic...you're picking the ideal situation for you, which is unlikely to hold at even 1st level...and you're comparing apples and oranges, not what I was talking about, which is the benefit of a +1 to damage vs a -1 to hit. Not what the benefit of a +1 to hit is compared with a moving target dependent on stats.

Let's use a bastard sword (+3)(or WF, doesn't really matter which one as crits adjust automatically) and look at AC 20 and power attack, with a Holy Strike at +2 extra damage.

DPR:
Holy Strike (7*11.5) + 17(crit) = 97.5; 97.5/20 = 4.875
Holy Strike (5*13.5)(PA) + 19(crit) = 86.5; 86.5/20 = 4.325

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad:

Your criteria for evaluating the spreadsheets are flawed. The at-will choices on consideration in the PHB only target Ref, and the illusionary at-will is considered on its Will targeting alone (that being unique).

Thus, if you want to weigh Ref vs. Fort, you only have to count whether a monster either has better Ref than Fort or better Fort than Ref. Extremely high counts of Fort relative to Ref don't count because as long as Fort is higher, you aren't going to be using that power anyway, regardless of how high the Fort happens to be. That's the only criterion.

If you use this more practical measure, you'll come up with better numbers and that will reflect itself in play.

Way ahead of you. My spreadsheet analyzes all types of criteria. That was just one simple example.

I was merely pointing out to you that Low Fort almost never happens, unlike your claim to the contrary.

 

[Roxlimn]

KarinsDad:

As far as I can tell, I posted, "sometimes Fort is lower than AC, even significantly lower."

What about that tells you that I'm comparing Fort to Ref or that I used your criteria to do so? That seems fairly clear that I was comparison Fort defense to AC defense, not Ref.

 

[LittleElvis]

Let's make the comparison a little more realistic...you're picking the ideal situation for you, which is unlikely to hold at even 1st level...and you're comparing apples and oranges, not what I was talking about, which is the benefit of a +1 to damage vs a -1 to hit. Not what the benefit of a +1 to hit is compared with a moving target dependent on stats.

Let's use a bastard sword (+3)(or WF, doesn't really matter which one as crits adjust automatically) and look at AC 20 and power attack, with a Holy Strike at +2 extra damage.

DPR:
Holy Strike (7*11.5) + 17(crit) = 97.5; 97.5/20 = 4.875
Holy Strike (5*13.5)(PA) + 19(crit) = 86.5; 86.5/20 = 4.325

Well I know it's hypothetical, but that's extremely unrealistic and, really unlike my example, certainly "picking the ideal situation for you." You're using Power Attack against a high AC opponent (why?) while using a one-handed weapon with power attack (uncommon), and you don't have Weapon Focus while do you have power attack? That's not happening in reality, because it's plainly not optimized. However, give that power attack guy a Maul (more realistic) and he would beat the non-PA guy even against a high AC.

We were definitely talking about +1 to damage versus +1 to hit, and as I pointed out, the +1 to damage is better against opponents realistic for your level, and almost never significantly bested by the +1 to hit (the AC has to be unrealistically high for +1 to hit to be significantly better).

The higher the opposing AC, the less you want to trade to-hit bonuses for damage bonuses, obviously. But against your high AC 20 example at first level, the +1 to damage is still nearly identical to the +1 to hit in the situation most common for a Paladin (18 STR and a longsword).

I also did not compare an apple and an orange, because I did compare +1 to damage vs +1 to hit. That's explicitly what we were talking about.

A -1/+1 or -2/+2 does increase your average DPR against opponents appropriate for your level. The example I gave was a realistic one. Using a longsword with 18 STR at level 1 and comparing +1 to hit vs +1 to damage. Even against the AC 20, they're almost perfectly identical in DPR. With AC lower than 20, +1 damage wins. At AC 20, they're really equal. Higher than AC 20, +1 to hit gets better.

 

[LittleElvis]

Here's a situation a little more friendly to the +1 to hit argument. Level 1, 18 STR, Warhammer or Battleaxe. Let's make the opposing AC 18, which is still a bit to the high side high.

+1 Damage: [8 x 10.5] + 15 = 99/20 = 4.950
+1 To Hit: [9 x 9.5] + 14 = 99.5/20 = 4.975

Almost identical vs a high'ish AC. +1 damage being somewhat better vs. more common opponents.

For fun, compare that to a longsword:

+1 Damage: [9 x 9.5] + 13 = 98.5/20 = 4.925
+1 to hit: [10 x 8.5] + 12 = 97/20 = 4.850

And with a magical +1 Longsword ...

+1 Damage: [10 x 10.5] + 14 = 119/20 = 5.950
+1 to hit: [11 x 9.5] + 13 = 117.5/20 = 5.875

So of course it does depend on what kind of weapon you are using, Enhancement and feat bonuses, etc.

And of course it's true that once you get Weapon Focus (or if you use a higher DPR weapon), the benefit of the +1 to hit goes up somewhat vs the +1 to damage.

To go back to the original discussion, with a +2 or better WIS bonus from Holy Strike, it's still going to be your winner vs 1 opponent almost all of the time. Even with +1 WIS bonus, it's better a very, very healthy majority of the time at lower levels of play (except vs opponents with very low hp or insanely high AC).

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad:

As far as I can tell, I posted, "sometimes Fort is lower than AC, even significantly lower."

What about that tells you that I'm comparing Fort to Ref or that I used your criteria to do so? That seems fairly clear that I was comparison Fort defense to AC defense, not Ref.

In a discussion of Wizard At Will powers, AC doesn't matter. I assumed you had a typo in your message because you were talking about how wonderful Ray of Frost is.

Ray of Frost is not wonderful. We have the early part of this thread here on how subpar it is, even after throwing two feats at it.


So, if you were indeed talking about AC (which is not very productive in a discusion on Wizard At Will powers), most weapons get a +2 ranged (where the attacker is more safe) or +3 melee to hit (where the attacker is less safe) weapon proficiency bonus.

Wizard attacks do not get this bonus.

So yes, Fort can be lower than AC and often is.

But who cares unless one subtracts 3 from the AC in order to compare the AC to the Fort. At that point, one is comparing Defender (good attacker vs. AC) vs. Wizard (good attacker vs. Fort): AC vs. Fort.

At that point, the number of "Significantly Lower Fort (i.e. adjusted by 3 and 4 or more than that lower) vs. AC" creatures out of the first 182 is exactly 1. Even comparing AC-3 straight up vs. Fort yields 34 creatures (most of them 1 lower) out of 182.

One cannot just compare AC to Fort because PCs that use weapons get bonuses to hit. One has to adjust AC and then compare.


1 out of 182 significantly lower. Yup, that is "sometimes", but not too often.

Hardly an endorsement of what you were stating.

Fort is almost never significantly lower than any Defense one compares it to. One of the other Defenses is better than Fort for a Wizard (or any attacker) to target the vast majority of the time.


That is one reason (out of several) why Ray of Frost is suboptimal.

 

[MwaO]

Well I know it's hypothetical, but that's extremely unrealistic and, really unlike my example, certainly "picking the ideal situation for you." You're using Power Attack against a high AC opponent (why?) while using a one-handed weapon with power attack (uncommon), and you don't have Weapon Focus while do you have power attack? That's not happening in reality, because it's plainly not optimized. However, give that power attack guy a Maul (more realistic) and he would beat the non-PA guy even against a high AC.

As I noted, they're the same thing, Bastard Sword/WF. I'm doing the -2 so it is obvious how the math works. When you insert a -1, you're still better off swinging at an AC 20 guy with the +1 to hit.

And no, Maul guy wouldn't. He ends up doing significantly worse damage against AC 20, even with the extra +1 damage.

+4 = 4*(7+4+2+3)+21 = 85/20 = 4.2
+6 = 6*(7+4+2)+18 = 96/20 = 4.8

Yes, the +1 to damage is mathematically better than the +1 to hit at low levels in DPR against all level-appropriate opponents (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless).

I'm not the person who said 'all level-appropriate opponents'

 

[Stalker0]

Guys, you can't do just a straight up comparison of average damage between holy strike and valiant strike, because in many situations all you care about is hitting.

For example, with the bloodied mechanic, I can tell when a guy is really hurt. And its easy to judge when a creature has just a few hitpoints left. In those situations, it doesn't matter that the average damage of holy strike is higher...I just care about hitting the creature because hit = death. In these situations, which are not uncommon in my experience, valiant strike is the clear choice.

I've got nothing against holy strike mind you, but remember that attack bonuses do a lot more than just bump up average damage.

 

[keterys]

Attack bonuses certainly kill minions faster Also, thy sometimes carry riders (sneak attack, combat superiority, etc)

If Sure Strike could be used for OA innately, it would even be a tolerable power because of combat superiority.

That said, the number of hits where you would have killed with either Valiant or Holy Strike is probably fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Bloodied tends to be a pretty large hp range if we're talking at-wills. Especially paladin at-wills.

 

[LittleElvis]

As I noted, they're the same thing, Bastard Sword/WF. I'm doing the -2 so it is obvious how the math works. When you insert a -1, you're still better off swinging at an AC 20 guy with the +1 to hit.

And no, Maul guy wouldn't. He ends up doing significantly worse damage against AC 20, even with the extra +1 damage.

+4 = 4*(7+4+2+3)+21 = 85/20 = 4.2
+6 = 6*(7+4+2)+18 = 96/20 = 4.8

I'm not the person who said 'all level-appropriate opponents'

Well AC 20 is not a level-appropriate opponent for a 1st level character.

Regarding the Maul, I was saying to compare a Maul-wielder with Power Attack vs. the Bastard Sword guy without power attack vs 20 AC, because, that's actually a realistic comparison of two things that might happen in reality. And yes, even vs AC 20 and using power attack, the Maul is better in terms of DPR. Just trying to come up with something realistic.

You've also said twice now that Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus are the same, but they are not. Even at 1[W], the Bastard sword does better DPR as it does more damage on a crit. With 2[W] or higher[W] the Bastard sword also is obviously better than weapon focus.