May Daggermaster Nerf Rumour

[xXElaDriNDrizZztXx]

yes but if it applies to all crits and you are critting on 18-20 vs 20 which one triggers more? Therefore which one would have the higher expected damage? If you are rolling 2 attacks at 18-20 you should approx crit every third round vs critting every ten rounds with regular crit range (assuming 2 attacks per round) so yeah critting three times as much, which triggers the extra attack a few extra times, plus maxing hq or sa damage and a bunch of other fun stuff out there.

Oh and to the person who said what to do if a pc is deliberately gimping himself? Well, let him stay gimped, he was going for a broken combo and if that was his intention too bad so sad, just like the ooi abusers and rrot users in the past. It happens. If you really don't want to see that happen, play with the rules as you want them and let him have the higher crit range.

Dungeons and Special Olympics here! You don't always crit! There is a thing called probability and chance!

Can i join your group so i can crit on 2-20? He did the math with 10 rounds of twin strike, that brings in natural probability and axes still won.

What you don't understand is everything that helps daggers helps axes EXCEPT dagger master.

Next time, make your point without being rude. Please read the FAQ, which explains the rules of engagement here at ENworld.

 

[renau1g]

Very good Drizztroxxorphatlewt, your comments are excellent and intelligent, please read my (and others) posts before commenting. Hence my comment about critting on an 18-20 and therefore critting on every third round. If say as a number that a bonus to crit is = 10. If you crit 15% of the time, each attack the damage expected value is 1.5. If you crit only 5% of the time = .5 extra damage.

As I said before he only used base damage above. There was no expectation about the extra 2 attacks granted by two-weapon opening, nor of the increased expected damage from critting an extra few times, nor of the expected extra damage from the maxed SA damage so the calculation is not valid as it is missing some of the expected variables.

 

[renau1g]

Forgot to add that his analysis assumed an equal hit rate which isn't accurate as the dagger is at least +1 to hit over waraxe (or +2 in rogues hands)

 

[xXElaDriNDrizZztXx]

Forgot to add that his analysis assumed an equal hit rate which isn't accurate as the dagger is at least +1 to hit over waraxe (or +2 in rogues hands)

Using his math, just assume of the attacks that hit, quarry goes off.
Daggers - 9 hits, 3 crits. 288 with no static buffs.
Waraxes - 10 hits, 1 crit. 326 with no static buffs.

Since two-weapon opening is a proc and not static, only a simulation can show when your crits were with MH weapons. Also, IT'S STILL ONLY 1 OFF-HAND ATTACK, NOT 2.

You would need a prolonged simulation can prove the math.

For simplicities sake, we'll say the mob has an AC of 10. 10 to hit with axes, 9 to hit with daggers. It's easier this way since all other attack modifiers effect both weapons.

We'll include your beloved two-weapon opening and not maxing Quarry since I have A. Never played it like that and B. doesn't matter since both weapons would receive it. Also not including static modifiers, because like Quarry, both weapons receive it.

Daggers 20 attacks. First number is MH, second is OH, so on and so forth. *indicate two-weapon opening attacks. Damage includes 2d4, 3d8, and 6d6 for criticals.
2 - Miss
13 - 23 damage
19 - 39 damage
5* - Miss
11 - 16 damage
5 - Miss
13 - 18 damage
7 - Miss
19 - 49 damage
19 - 36 damage
7* - Miss
4 - Miss
8 - Miss
18 - 46 damage
6 - Miss
15 - 29
5 - Miss
8 - Miss
16 - 16 damage
4 - Miss
7 - Miss
10 - 14 damage.

= 286 damage

With Waraxes. Damage includes 2d12, 3d8 and 3d12 and 6d6 for criticals.
15 - 28 damage
2 - Miss
20 - 77 damage
6* - Miss
5 - Miss
6 - Miss
13 - 16
2 - Miss
17 - 20 damage
1 - Miss
20 - 85 damage
12 - 21 damage
12 - 8 damage
4 - Miss
5 - Miss
15 - 27 damage
5 - Miss
14 - 31 damage
11 - 13 damage
5 - Miss
5 - Miss

= 326 damage

There is your random chance and probability to hit. If anyone wants to run a prolonged simulation and post the spreadsheet be my guest.

 

[renau1g]

My comment about 2 extra attacks from TWopening is that you will crit (on average) 3 times over 10 turns vs 1 time for regular weapon therefore 2 more attacks. Again, the analysis is missing extra crit-boosting items that Daggermaster's go for (which is a factor in analysis as they trigger three times as often). Regardless of how you play re: HQ/SA damage it is maxed out on a crit so again, add approx 21 more damage to the rogue (24 maxed 3d8 HQ damage - 13.5 (average rolls on d8)). Adding those in I'd say you're pretty close to even at worst.

You also need to include static modifiers in the analysis as the dagger hits more often, therefore the static modifiers should come into play at least 1 more time during the 20 rounds. (+1 to hit = 5% increase in hit probability = 1 out of 20 attacks).

 

[Obryn]

Erm... 20 instances is clearly not a prolonged simulation.

Over time, the daggers WILL hit more often than the axe.

If your simulation isn't even approaching the relatively simple math of hit probability, I'm not sure why you're posting it as proof of anything.

Also, RAW, Quarry and Sneak Attack are both maximized on a hit. Never doing it that way in your own house rules isn't a good reason not to include it in what's supposed to be evidence for your point. Whether or not both receive it is important, because the Dagger will crit more often, and therefore the maximization will have a larger effect.

Ditto on the static modifiers. If the Dagger is hitting more often - and it will, over time - it will get more of the static modifiers over the axe. So again, that's a pretty critical detail you've overlooked.

I don't have a horse in this race, but your analysis is so flawed I'm not even sure why you spent the time typing it up.

-O

 

[xXElaDriNDrizZztXx]

Erm... 20 instances is clearly not a prolonged simulation.

Over time, the daggers WILL hit more often than the axe.

If your simulation isn't even approaching the relatively simple math of hit probability, I'm not sure why you're posting it as proof of anything.

Also, RAW, Quarry and Sneak Attack are both maximized on a hit. Never doing it that way in your own house rules isn't a good reason not to include it in what's supposed to be evidence for your point. Whether or not both receive it is important, because the Dagger will crit more often, and therefore the maximization will have a larger effect.

Ditto on the static modifiers. If the Dagger is hitting more often - and it will, over time - it will get more of the static modifiers over the axe. So again, that's a pretty critical detail you've overlooked.

I don't have a horse in this race, but your analysis is so flawed I'm not even sure why you spent the time typing it up.

-O

20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.

 

[IanB]

20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.

No, it isn't a good indicator of anything, other than maybe that's how one fight might go. The sample size isn't statistically significant so it basically proves nothing about the actual math involved. And that's on top of the other issues like not maxing quarry dice on a crit, etc.

 

[Fifth Element]

20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.

That's not how it works. In this case, you don't even need an inadequate number of random die rolls like you've done here. You know the distribution of results over a large number of rolls so you can just calculate the results.

 

[Obryn]

20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.

Please tell me you meant this tongue in cheek

"Battles last less than 20 rounds, therefore any 20 rounds will work to prove my point, regardless of whether or not they are statistically sound."

When you're doing any kind of statistics, 20 rounds aren't a good sample, period. You assume an infinite number of trials.

-O