Search results

OK, so I'm coming up with 4.5(scim)+2(enh)+2(WF)+1(TWF)+5(cold)=14.5, instead of your 19.5. What's going on? Same comment for the Rogue/Ranger. By the way, TWF for the Scimitar Ranger only applies every other attack, so you should really be counting +0.5(TWF), for a total of 14.0 average damage.

This is great stuff. I also wanted one of those, but I see you beat me to it. Some early observations: 1) I can't figure out why your Scimitar Ranger 1 has auto damage. 2) Your wizard is not a very good build. Aside from the fact that orb wizards with high wisdom and the sleep spell are full...

What? Damage is 1d8 (W) + 4 (Dex) +4 (Cha), which is 9-16. He's got Weapon Prof (Rapier), and that's it... Did I make an error? My mistake. I was convinced Longbow was +3 prof. Good job. I'm looking at it now.

Thanks for catching that error, I will make corrections and upload new versions. I recall I had a hard time with that one, and I think there's another error here (thanks for catching it.) First off, I figured that Unyielding Avalanche would proc the Lasting Cold (it has the [weapon] tag, so...

For the encounter block, I've assumed that you wait until you've got the frost vulnerability on to strike your opponent. That adds a flat 5 damage to all damage rolls. This character (row 85) is a Brutal Scoundrel hitting with Torturous Strike with a Large Rapier. His damage is 2d10 (Large...

You're counting the +4 to damage three times or something. The damage on a crit is 1d8 (base, maximized), +2d8 (high crit), +2d6 (frost), +2 (weapon focus), +2 (enhancement bonus). TWF is not counted (as noted in the first post), because it was complicating my calculations and is a minor bonus...

Yeah I guess you're right... :)

This doesn't actually work, so nevermind.

double post

I didn't look at the rest, but hitting the first time does not exclude hitting the second time (they are not mutually exclusive events...) If it makes a difference to you, I'm a math professor at Temple University. Yeah, there are many interesting special cases for the foe. For instance, a...

I'm not discriminating against clerics, paladins and warlords; I just don't know them very well. Maybe I'll add them later.

That's a good combo, and I guess the riposting rogues would benefit as well. I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet, we'll see. There are too many of those and I can't account for all of them. So I'm gonna leave the one that I put in for the Fighter, and mention the rest in the text or something.

Dear Natro, Thanks for your comments. Your equation is incorrect. The equation that I have is more complicated, but I think it is correct. The basic idea is this. If you have 50% of missing on an attack, and if you have two attacks, then you have (50% x 50%) = 25% chance of missing on both...

Good point, although I'm starting to regret having added that option for Rain of Steel, because I'm sensing a combinatorial explosion. You are right about Armor of Agathys, it's an awesome spell for DPR, better than Rain of Steel. I'm not 100% sure how it plays out in the duel for a Warlock, for...

I tried to compare the bugbear ranger to a non-infernal warlock, and that's the best I could come up with. On the other hand, I did find a good combo with the Life-Stealer, but I guess you were too busy prejudging my calculations to notice.

You can't have a frost weapon that's also a wraithblade, and a frost weapon is better than a wraithblade if you have Lasting Frost, which all these characters have. So, in the scenario that I give, and for the levels that I consider, the Daggermaster seems to have slightly less DPR than the...

Thanks for your comment. If you read the top post, you will see that I've given a +3 to hit for attacks that target Will, so that these attacks are more directly comparable to attacks that target AC.

Wow, I totally missed it. For some reason, I had forgotten that Locks got this -- in fact, I misremembered the opposite, i.e., that Locks didn't get this bonus! I am uploading fixed graphs and XLS files as I write this.

That's why I include both cases: using the stance, and not using it. If you don't like the comparison, just ignore that particular line.

I assume that you have CA. Then, I count the probability of hitting, P. Then, I count the average expected damage of a sneak attack, D. The damage from Sneak Attack is P times D. I have counted Brutal Scoundrel and such in this damage.