TOPIC: Damage Dealt vs. Build Cost

Matthew Hayward wrote: For spellcasters I just assume they cast all their damage spells before engaging in melee (even if that is a damage reduction). I don't assume use of the Cabal Set (although may have to change in 2016 with the Amulet of the Savant). I assume Mad Evoker's Charm is used on the best 5 auto hit spells. I ignore any "as a scroll" boosters / copiers etc. as that is a big damage reducer at the UR and up level.

Hmm. I might squeeze a bit more than 5 out as Wizard, especially at level 5 (Elf is more limited). Depends on what kind of healing backup I can get. And in that respect, having HP boosters is actually critical for Wizards.

And to going back to the original questions, because Wizards need to use MEC to boost their damage to be 'competitive' they likely need to bring a lot of healing potions. Having a Pouch of Tulz and all of the healing potions to fuel the MEC when the Cleric or Druid isn't available would actually be part of the Wizard damage-dealing strategy.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I guess what I'm trying to figure out is; if Monk and Ranger are the highest damage-dealing builds, are they also the most expensive? Ideally we'd come up with the max damage builds and then figure out each cost, divide it out, and figure out how the classes differ.

Well, part of this involves making some decisions about going for range or melee for various classes. Going polymorph, spells, or attacking with a weapon for a Druid.

I'd say it remains impossible to draw specific conclusions from the data. For example, my Ranger is great at both melee and ranged. I could cut the cost down significantly by focusing on melee while increasing melee damage. But then there would be some rooms where I couldn't be very effective.

Likewise a Wizard needs tokens to make up for their poor stats, more so than the Ranger. And they need more healing attention, etc.

But one thing I think is pretty clear is that a maxed-out wizard tops out at around $10k, or about $4 for the specific damage-increasing tokens. But a maxed-out Ranger is almost $19k, or almost twice as expensive. The damage-increasing tokens come out to $11k.

Given this information, I'd say that perhaps Wizards would pay twice as much money for tokens if they could get a better build. Or perhaps they should be happier with a lower damage output having spent only about half as much. Likewise, if a Wizard burns $100/yr of consumables it would take a long time to match what I've put into my Ranger. I don't think it is unfair at all for a character with a lower upfront cost would need to burn more consumables to be competitive.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I guess what I'm trying to figure out is; if Monk and Ranger are the highest damage-dealing builds, are they also the most expensive? Ideally we'd come up with the max damage builds and then figure out each cost, divide it out, and figure out how the classes differ.

Then maybe for the Wizard we need to figure out what the consumable cost would be. Basically the fixed cost of the build vs. the variable cost of running it.

So a Potion of Distilled Healing to fuel the MEC.

Probably Scroll of Acid Burst once they run out of spells to cast.

This is probably why Laz uses a Cranky Old Wizard build that focuses on melee.

I wonder what it's like for other classes. Ranger and Monk do seem to be the outliers. What would a maxed-out Paladin, Barbarian, or Fighter come out like?

Kirk Bauer wrote: I guess what I'm trying to figure out is; if Monk and Ranger are the highest damage-dealing builds, are they also the most expensive? Ideally we'd come up with the max damage builds and then figure out each cost, divide it out, and figure out how the classes differ.

Sure - phrased that way we should be able to figure it out! Feel free to use my build as a reference for what a top level Wizard build would be like cost wise. Others will go with the Cabal set, but I have URs in all those slots as well.

Lodestone (KH) wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: For spellcasters I just assume they cast all their damage spells before engaging in melee (even if that is a damage reduction). I don't assume use of the Cabal Set (although may have to change in 2016 with the Amulet of the Savant). I assume Mad Evoker's Charm is used on the best 5 auto hit spells. I ignore any "as a scroll" boosters / copiers etc. as that is a big damage reducer at the UR and up level.

Hmm. I might squeeze a bit more than 5 out as Wizard, especially at level 5 (Elf is more limited). Depends on what kind of healing backup I can get. And in that respect, having HP boosters is actually critical for Wizards.

And to going back to the original questions, because Wizards need to use MEC to boost their damage to be 'competitive' they likely need to bring a lot of healing potions. Having a Pouch of Tulz and all of the healing potions to fuel the MEC when the Cleric or Druid isn't available would actually be part of the Wizard damage-dealing strategy.

Sure - part of my design in the sheet is to do what the character can reasonably do on their own.

If you have a Eldritch + Lenses of Divine Sight Cleric or Druid, and you are working together as a team, you can MeC a lot more.

Similarly, if you have a 5th level bard and a +2 damage lute Fighter classes get +2/+4 on each slide.

I think those interactions are a bit too subjective and fiddly for what I'm trying to achieve in my sheet - but with teamwork the damage of all classes goes up - the Wizard might get the biggest boost due to MeC on every action if they are going to get healed 10 HP on every action (but, then the Cleric or Druid is passing on an action to give healing).

Lodestone (KH) wrote: I wonder what it's like for other classes. Ranger and Monk do seem to be the outliers. What would a maxed-out Paladin, Barbarian, or Fighter come out like?

They'd look a lot like this in 2015:

Avernon's +5 Deathcleaver
Ioun Stone Onyx Sphere
Ioun Stone Onyx Cube
Stu-Pendous Pendant
Gauntlets of Linked Fury
Surtr's Girdle of Fire Giant Strength
Ring of Brilliance
Ring of Enervation
Sonic Boots of +5 Damage (I always forget what these are called)
Charm of Heroism
Draco-Lich Claw Charm
Rod of Seven Parts ( Complete )
Bracers of Frost
Crown of Might
Lots of non-damage stuff

This build gives +12 to hit, +31 to damage.

Compare with a topped out 2015 monk who is at like +15 to hit and +23 to damage.

You can sort of see the problem here - Barbarian slides one puck for around 30 damage, Monk slides two pucks for around 30 damage.

Unless the Monk hits 1/2 as often as the Barbarian, they are going to out damage the Barbarian.

Lodestone (KH) wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I guess what I'm trying to figure out is; if Monk and Ranger are the highest damage-dealing builds, are they also the most expensive? Ideally we'd come up with the max damage builds and then figure out each cost, divide it out, and figure out how the classes differ.

Then maybe for the Wizard we need to figure out what the consumable cost would be. Basically the fixed cost of the build vs. the variable cost of running it.

So a Potion of Distilled Healing to fuel the MEC.

Probably Scroll of Acid Burst once they run out of spells to cast.

This is probably why Laz uses a Cranky Old Wizard build that focuses on melee.

I think Laz uses the melee Wizard build because he is a bad ass at sliding .

At the Eldritch level the costs of consumables are really not substantial - for Arcanist I believe it's more the principle of the thing:

• Wizards get 14 spells on the card.
• Once they are out of spells they can either go into "hulk smash" mode (at which they are terrible compared to the Melee classes due to lower inherent abilities), or they can start spending money in consumables to deal 5-10 points of damage.
• Incognito points out they can also use their pucks to bump other characters onto higher numbers.

BiS Monks and Rangers get unlimited combat slides. They can always slide for 2* ~30 points * hit ratio.

BiS Barbarians, Fighters get unlimited combat slides. They can always slide for ~40 points * 8 hit ratio.

If you were min-maxing, why would you choose Wizard over the others?

Keep in mind Wizards have less HP, worse saves, and lower AC than the other classes. What are all their trade offs buying?

Some say "automatic damage" - and it's true that even with +100 combat bonus some regions of the monster board are inactive, you probably never hit more than 90% of slides no matter what.

Some say "melee gets hosed a lot" - which may be true historically, but in 2015 Spells were hosed just as much, if not more than melee. Overall hosing was equitable across attack modes.

I enjoyed your hosing list.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'd say it remains impossible to draw specific conclusions from the data. For example, my Ranger is great at both melee and ranged. I could cut the cost down significantly by focusing on melee while increasing melee damage. But then there would be some rooms where I couldn't be very effective.

Likewise a Wizard needs tokens to make up for their poor stats, more so than the Ranger. And they need more healing attention, etc.

But one thing I think is pretty clear is that a maxed-out wizard tops out at around $10k, or about $4 for the specific damage-increasing tokens. But a maxed-out Ranger is almost $19k, or almost twice as expensive. The damage-increasing tokens come out to $11k.

Given this information, I'd say that perhaps Wizards would pay twice as much money for tokens if they could get a better build. Or perhaps they should be happier with a lower damage output having spent only about half as much. Likewise, if a Wizard burns $100/yr of consumables it would take a long time to match what I've put into my Ranger. I don't think it is unfair at all for a character with a lower upfront cost would need to burn more consumables to be competitive.

If you assume TD damage output should be balanced around BiS secondary market token prices, then I'd agree. But I think this is basically meaningless, as Rangers and Druids clearly win here, because they get to "count" the Eldritch two piece as enhancing their class and others don't. Rangers get to "count" 3 legendary weapons, 1 more than any other class.

Players prize dealing damage highly, so of course tokens that are BiS for the most damage dealing classes will be expensive. A few days ago a +3 Staff of Focus sold for $255 on eBay. I think a +3 Viper Strike Fang would sell for at least $300, likely closer to $350. I don't see that as evidence that Rangers _should_ deal more damage, I see it as evidence that Rangers _do_ deal more damage, and thus the tokens they need to deal that damage are in higher demand.

However I'd dispute the premise - I think TD damage output should be balanced roughly like so:

1. Figure out what are the "goods" that TD characters have, a possible list would include:

Resilience:

• Hit points
• Saves
• AC

Damage:

• Explosivity (potential damage in one round)
• Expected damage per round
• Consistency of dealing damage

Utility:

• Healing
• Buffing
• Flexibility of approach with regard to character build and/or token availability

2. Divvy up these "goods" among the classes in some manner, leading to different focuses and abilities, recognizing some things are more important than others to players (for example, being #1 at damage is more prized than being #1 at resiliency).

My concern with Wizards (and Rogues) is that they have the worst resiliency, very bad at Utility, and below average at Damage (or maybe average depending on how you weight "explosivity" and "consistency").

Matthew Hayward wrote: If you were min-maxing, why would you choose Wizard over the others?

Scrolls and spells have a significant advantage in time savings, especially compared to "unlimited melee/missile attacks." You can also choose to fail the skill test to speed things up even more.

Scrolls and spells let you entirely bypass/ignore the monster's AC, which is a significant advantage.

If you're willing to spend consumables, Wizards actually have a lot of really awesome defensive options.