Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryPurpleCyclops" data-source="post: 4723281" data-attributes="member: 82732">You are greatly mistaken.  I'm ignoring none of these.  The only argument that you can make that holds any water is that with a higher staff value it might be easier to pass on a 1st round attack that you felt was less threatening than a future attack might be.  The problem with this is by holding off you offset the potential gain by the possibility that you would fail to get to use the power at all.  I exactly calculated the odds of using the power.  There is no way to argue it's use gets exponentially better as you gain con, it only gets marginally better and it's margin is decreasing. This is fluff.  Your actions and hit points do not change in relative value over time. The game scales in a linear fashion, it's just as important to not get stunned at 4th level as it is at 14th as it is at 24th.  More importantly since you can only block one attack per encounter with the staff, beyond the point where you're nearly always getting to use it, there is almost no increase in benefit.You have this backwards, but I understand your point. I agree there is a slight gain in utility (nothing close to exponential) by increased confidence that you could pass on blocking a non condition attack in an early round and still have a relatively high confidence you'll block another later.  This also has a chance of failing to work and potentially costing your character his life (which is a massive decrease in utility).  I think they mostly offset but I'm willing to concede that there is a slight benefit.  Since frequently monsters are unleashing their encounter powers early, this is a lot less benefit than you're trying to imply. This is false.  It also ignores the chance you'll fail to use the power. In any event if the attack is of low value you can still choose to ignore it regardless of how good your staff is.  The same opportunity costs apply to both.  The math gets better as you increase the con score but only slightly per increment and ever decreasingly.  I can do the math of the probability of getting hit twice and it will definitely show this to be true.  You're also ignoring the fact that a subsequent attack might do less damage than the one passed upon and thereby guarantee your decreased utility.  Bottom line you argument regarding opportunity costs is very very weak and certainly not the basis for an EXPONENTIAL gain in utility.Your argument is totally flawed here as you disregard the very real possibilities of NEVER getting to use the power as well as the possibility you'll have to use it on a weaker attack later or even worse, you'll get yourself killed because no future attack fell in the range.  These are massive opportunity costs of the decision to "withhold use".  It's marginal utility is definitely not increasing.  I totally understand the concept of attempting to hold it for a more important attack but you're not factoring many real facets of the game, especially the concepts that the strongest powers are often released in the first 2 rounds and failing to use the power at it's first opportunity can get you killed.  This argument is repeated all over DnD forums, that still doesn't make it right and it's certainly not mathematically correct.  You're totally ignoring that in most uses of wand it fails to change the outcome of the attack.  By about a 7-1 ratio on average.  Even with an 18 dex, the wand is only useful 1 time in 5.  The fallacious logic that it's on "the big attack" is dreadful reasoning since few if any monsters are slain by one big attack.  A lot of orb lock down arguments try and say this increased chance magnifies the orbs power but that's simply ignoring the fact that by the time you have lock down with the orb you have multiple powers that can inflict a debilitating effect.   In the same 5 encounters the +1 of staff will likely block 3-4 hits by itself and the staff interrupt will block another 3-4.  Blocking 8-9 attacks is massively more valuable than landing an additional attack (even if it's your big daily).  The only way to argue wand is even remotely close to an equal utility is in getting a lock down stun on a solo.  But since solo's are the majority of encounters and the wand still only changes about 1 roll in 7 this is really poor utility.You're quite mistaken here as well.  We do care about holding monsters as long as possible but these are not exponential gains, they are slightly increasing marginal gains but this still ignores the fact that +1 more orb only impacts about 1 encounter in 7.  That's the reality.  The math you're quoting pretends there is an increase in utility for holding something 10+ rounds.  Once again, marginally positive is still not exponential gains.  +9 for wisdom will not benefit your pc as much as +3 con, +6 wisdom (probably even 3/7 or 4/6 if you consider the opportunity costs associated with having a wisdom + 9 wizard).  By starting with a 20 wisdom, your pc with will likely have terrible hitpoints and fortitude and will be perpetually behind in ATT which translates into a great number of misses over the life of a pc.  Even as the number of rounds of combat go up, holding a significant monster out of combat for 4-5 rounds will drastically change the encounter dynamics.  There is definitely a rapidly decreasing utility in forcing failed saves beyond a certain number of rounds.    At what expense?  You're endlessly talking about opportunity costs but don;t take any of the inverse opportunity costs into account.  If you play an orb wizard and try for lock down by raising wisdom above INT you're ignoring all the times you've missed by a roll of 1 and would have started an additional status effect.  No matter how you argue about marginal utility +1 on orb still only changes 1 roll in 20 saves on one single condition in an encounter (this averages out to about 3 rolls an encounter).  The +1 ATT affects every attack roll in the encounter.  This averages out to about 15-30 rolls per encounter.  You're going to actually change about one save every 7 encounters with +1 wisdom but you're going to gain about 6-10 additional hits in that same time.  Some of those might deliver a status so you might actually cause more rounds of status by not having as good an orb value but having a better ATT.  Not to mention the massive increase in damage you'll be contributing to the effort.You're deluding yourself.  Um... NO, unless it's been errata'd it's a free action and it is applied before the roll.  It is not an interrupt.  This might explain your belief that it compares because that is not RAW and it most definitely is crippled by not being an interrupt. this is pseudo math.  Blatantly false and barely makes sense.This is ridiculous.  While it is true, you can impact further around an obstacle (but most likely only by cheating via metagame knowledge the pc wouldn't have) If you kept trying to hit monsters around corners you can't see as a DM I would leave the pieces in positions that didn't correspond to their exact location making you waste your turn frequently with blind fire.  More importantly suggesting this compensates for the vast range of options given to the caster of scorching is ridiculous.  You're still counting on several feats and being paragon level.  pretty situational and definitely cheating if you don't have some means of targeting the creatures.  The first part is questionable, high level pc's will have more magic items, more encounter powers, more dailies, if combat rounds goes up the encounter is likely difficult and as such the pc's will be MORE likely to use up dailies.  You're still not making a point that's relevant in the second part of this.  No one is arguing that thunderwave isn't tactically valuable in a lot of situations.  You've just come to the biased conclusion that this is both indispensable and too costly for your build.  opportunity costs for your choices are a good thing.  Having only one viable build is not.  It's obvious that push 4 is better than push 2 but if you settle for push 2 you get other things in return.  That's the nature of the game.If you couple ray of frost with wintertouched and lasting frost, you grant combat advantage to everyone in your party who takes wintertouched with every cold power.  If they also have cold powers or a frost weapon you're talking about +5 damage on EVERY hit and +2(CA) on EVERY ATT (and sneak damage) for everyone.  This is a massive combo.  LOL, only if we accept your version of optimal build.  It might be a lot of peoples contention that you're now giving the true optimal build a better version of T-wave.are there hoards of players arguing t-wave is broken?This is another very circumspect argument.  There is no requirement for all secondary or tertiary ability scores to get equal treatment.  The wizard description says secondarily on wis, dex and sometimes con.   This implies that wis is the secondary stat.  Is this bad?  is there a point here?who cares?  this is totally anecdotal.  You're not making an argument here.  I understand push 4 is situationally better than 2.  If you want to have a dominating wave, then pump wisdom if you're willing to accept a lesser wave, then so be it this is getting to the point of whining about wave.  I don't have wave in my build.  I took the opportunity cost at 1st level to trade a 3rd at-will for 1/encounter teleport.  I shouldn't get both, that's what makes building pc's fun.  You need to decide on your vision and tactics and build to suit.   ridiculously anecdotal.  More people killed by swords in combat than knives by a factor of likely 10-1   Do you think you would fair well against a sword and board knight in chainmail?  I don't.  A trained fencer with an epee/foil?  I don't.  A samurai with a katana?  I don't.  A germanic barbarian with a maul or great axe?  I don't.  All of the present various problems for your system.  You're not always going to be the best trained or the fastest and if you're not both of those you're likely going to die when wielding two knives vs a more imposing weapon.  I guarantee you can't block my one handed swing with a long sword with a dagger.  If you're inside the arc you're going to take damage and then it becomes a matter of recovery vs counter.  I can feint you into exhaustion because you need to work overtime at avoiding being hit.  I also guarantee that you can't strike a vital blow with a 1' knife if I shield bash you and extend my arm.  Meanwhile I'm taking your balance and opening you up to a host of attacks from front leg attacks to a reach around thrust or an overhand crushing blow.   Who ever you're sparring with is not using high force attacks because your wrist and forearm will not take the amount of energy a 6'5" 250lb man can generate even when spread out via the flat edge.  Against a novice attacker you might be able to step inside a blow and fend off a heavy attack close to the hilt but a trained attacker will feint a chop and run you through when you step inside the blow.  I know a little bit about two weapon fighting, two of my friends are "dog brothers".  They train quite a bit and have regular gatherings for full contact stick fighting.  They totally agree that switching which weapon is defending and which weapon is attacking is a fundamental part of two weapon combat, it still maintains my position that the second weapon doesn't actually grant a second attack (except rarely) I question this.  I understand the techniques used to block heavy blows with knives (or tonfa) but there is a point where you can't maintain the block or the force with either overwhelm the defense or render the blocking arm less useful to some degree.  I understand all of this but there are still two problems.  First this still implies a defense and an offense which means 1 attack and second it ignores the very real possibility that you'll be killed before you ever close the range gap. bad analogy because even if i never hit you with my left hand it still can block your right or be used for control, leverage, grappling etc. fighting with swords and knives is marginally obsoleted by firearms.  The preponderance of military training is focused on weapons with greater range and has been for ages because killing the other team before they get in range is very effective.   Even when I was younger I realized the potential for a serious negative outcome.  I grew up in an area where Italians and Irish didn't always agree, and though I've never actually started a fight, I'm not particularly good at walking away.  I have grown up, and I'm someones dad now.  Only twice since my children were born has a situation arose where fighting seemed the only option.  I probably could have avoided one of those with some serious effort but the other involved a pair of drunk men beating on a woman in a gas station and me verbally saying "hey, take it easy" precipitated an encounter.  HP's are a necessary abstraction to make dnd fun.  No one enjoys automatically losing a pc every 50 or 100 attacks.   while a simple cut "can" kill a person, the truth is it most likely won't.  I've seen someone with a punctured heart survive.  I totally agree it's possible to generate enough force to puncture most armors with a knife.  The tricky part here is if your opponent is trained he's likely going to be impeding your ability to generate a perfect attack either through his posture, his active defenses, or his offense.  His passive defenses are therefore vastly improved because most of your attacks will wind up being sub optimal.  Reach is pretty much always an advantage.  Obviously if someone has a 15' pike and you pass his guard it's game over but a 30" sword has a MASSIVE advantage over a 12" knife.  Give me a broadsword and a spiked buckler and I'll dominate your two knife system even though my training is extremely minimal with that pairing.  I'll certainly teach you a massive lesson about lead leg vulnerability.  The suggestion that it's easy to close the range or that it's really hard to use a spear to good effect on an attacker who is trying to close seems poorly chosen.  Men have hunted lions with spears for ages.  Hunting lions with knives would be tantamount to suicide.  An elephant?  Rhino?  Dragon?  DnD has to abstract weapons into a balanced game.  1' knives would be pitiful against a scaled dragon with a 10-15' reach.  Any weapon would be seemingly pitiful but it's a lot easier to imagine a sword or spear having effect than a dagger.   A trained attacker will shift his angle slightly and seriously damage your forearm.  Your wrists must be extremely flexible or the knives shaped oddly to get enough surface on your forearm.  If you're suggesting that you're deflecting rather than blocking I'm suggesting your attackers are not good.  I also think you're mistaken that you're blocking a full swing.  There's a lot of energy being created by the head speed of the bat/sword and the knife is not spreading it over the entire forearm like a tonfa might.   One of the problems with sparring that might lead you to a mistaken conclusion is the belief that you can repeatedly block a full speed sword swing under an adrenal state.  If they were sparring against you with a bat or sword and took a full swing you would have a serious chance of being injured.  This leads me to believ you're not facing full force attacks from a suitable weapon. This isn't something easily replicated for training and the mechanical 1/4 speed training you might have done most likely DOES NOT REPLICATE actual combat.DnD has lions and bears and dragons... I think you would rapidly change your mind when presented with these situations.  I'm also of the opinion if this was the case, there would be statues of double knife wielding warriors in in Rome. you're mistaken. I'm well aware of the liabilities of weapons as well as their strengths.  People attacking with a weapon often lose focus and pay attention entirely to their weapon thus if you control the weapon you control them.  You overlook the most important part of my post.  More often than not, offense trumps defense in combat.  More often than not you'll be killed before you reach knife range.  If your argument held water we would have seen a lot more of that system in historical combats.  When I said looking for an opening I meant an opening to advanced my position without letting you advance yours.  I've actually had firearms and knives pointed at me in the heat of the moment and I'm still here, so I think you might assume that I'm well aware of the concept of attacking the weapon/weapon hand. No I never said that.  I said that reach weapons often allowed lesser trained troops to kill better trained troops before they could close and use their training.  Many armies had tons of training.  You're not really making a point here.  I gave you hard numbers I can prove and you're commenting on woeful medical practices in medieval times.  I just pointed out your assertion that most combats end in a few seconds is simply not true or else a battle that lasted hours would see casualty rates beyond anything ever experienced.  An average centurion would carve you up without missing a step because he has more training, more experience, and better reach.    you're really kidding yourself.  How many hours a day do you train?History must be wrong.  You keep assuming the miss incidentally.  What happens when they don't miss? what happens when you face an even marginally well trained attacker who knows that 1' knives can't protect your leading leg? how will you close then?  There are also a lot of weapons that you can't ever gain a real advantage on.  A 20" gladius sharp on both sides, can be used to attack your weapon hands or leading leg and it's speed is comparable to that of a knife.  You can almost never get insides it's reach but it still has an advantage when striking you first. OK, I'm not there when you train but I suspect that you can't mirror real world combat and safely train your style and as such some things fall through the cracks.  Stopping one heavy sword blow (i.e. a perfectly placed baseball bat attack) and stopping several during the fluidity of combat are not the same.  I'm unsure how your system would respond to punches from a spiked buckler, or shield with sharpened edges.  Your system has to rely on agility and a shield rush can take away a lot of options.   Point taken.  I apologize. I'm not trying to be little you but I think there is a lot of empirical data that says sword and shield was the combo of choice.  I don't think your training mimics actual combat close enough to be sure that a heavy sword attacker won;t cave in your defenses under a flurry of blows.  Heavy swords sometimes caved in the defenses of heavy shields and you can't really believe blocking with a dagger is easier or less risky than blocking with a shield.I agree on fluidity and speed.  Harmoniously is a judgment call.  My problem is that I perceive the reach advantage to be significant enough to overcome the fluidity/speed.</blockquote>

Verification