TOPIC: Melee Damage in 2020

Daniel White wrote: This analysis is based on the assumption that there is only a 5% difference in hit rate between Monk/Ranger and all other classes. In my view, this does not reflect the practical reality. #1 It's harder to slide with two pucks. #2 Monk/Ranger frequently slide first and are knocked out of hits or crits by other players.

Assuming a 20% difference in hit rate, for example, would give pretty significantly different results.

The basis for dual wielding being balanced the way things are is that the hit rate with two pucks is lower. If you assume that's not the case, you'll of course arrive at a conclusion that it's way OP.

On the OP's math, Barbarian out-damages dual-wielding Ranger already (without accounting for its significantly higher hit rate). Barbarian also has more HP and therefore more survivability. By this logic folks should be arguing Barbarian needs a nerf too

I don't think anyone's going to disagree that Fighter, which has limited utility and no significant advantage over other sliding classes, needs some love. However, that shouldn't be the baseline for a comparison. Perhaps we should instead be talking about how to help Fighter and Dwarf Fighter...

The Barbarian is set to out damage ranger only at legendary gearing levels, and for the first time in over a decade (probably ever).

On the other hand, if we keep printing usable by all melee and str boosters (and there is no indication we won’t) rangers will climb the rankings and eventually overtake Barbarians again at some point in the future.

The OP provided a sheet that gives you the ability to plug in any hit rates you want, you should estimate the hit rates you think are realistic and post both them and the resulting order.

MasterED wrote:

Kakitahan wrote:

Fred K wrote: Rogue with assassin’s crossbow does more damage.

Fred

Do you know, if you equip nightshade's but don't use it for sneak attack (rather a ranged weapon), is the sneak attack damage still doubled if crit is confirmed?

No. See TokenDB for Nightshade. Says, "If the rogue uses this weapon to perform a sneak attack..."

Using the ranged weapon would not provide it.

Ed

“Note: If a rogue making a sneak attack scores a critical hit while wielding Nightshade’s +2 Short Sword, all damage is doubled, including the sneak attack bonus. When using most other weapons, sneak attack damage is not doubled on a crit.”

Above is the quote copied from tokensdb.

In my interpretation, Wielding is your equipped weapons from coaching room. You are wielding your weapons into combat/adventure, but necessarily using.

Above the copied text from tokendb, it specifically says ‘using the weapon’ to
describe a sneak attack functional bonus.

It is assumed to me that it doesn’t. Again clarity is unclear to me.

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: In my experience, while it is harder to slide 2 rather than 1, and monks and rangers are different, their hit ratios are quite close to the same as everyone else's.

I think you are correct, but I think there is a caveat. As a Ranger I personally rarely get critical hits. I don't even aim for them. When I hit on say 12+ then it is much safer to just go for two hits than try to get critical hits, especially since many times it would be virtually impossible to get both pucks on a 20.

As a DM I also think that Monks and Rangers get fewer critical hits than say Rogue, Barbarian, and Dwarf Fighter. I think that's the nature of sliding two pucks.

For this reason, and because of the Legendary, I am considering moving to Ranged-focus Ranger build. I'll be curious to see how well I slide if I start aiming for the 20.

When I had my heated monk, I would aim for somewhere in the middle of the boss. Only real time I missed on nightmare was when they were ethereal or some other mechanic or I slide too hard and hit the back bumper.

I was running +24 to hit. Some monsters I hit on a 1.

But this does represent all monks, but thus far my hit rate, in summary, feels like in the mid 80’s.

Kakitahan wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: In my experience, while it is harder to slide 2 rather than 1, and monks and rangers are different, their hit ratios are quite close to the same as everyone else's.

I think you are correct, but I think there is a caveat. As a Ranger I personally rarely get critical hits. I don't even aim for them. When I hit on say 12+ then it is much safer to just go for two hits than try to get critical hits, especially since many times it would be virtually impossible to get both pucks on a 20.

As a DM I also think that Monks and Rangers get fewer critical hits than say Rogue, Barbarian, and Dwarf Fighter. I think that's the nature of sliding two pucks.

For this reason, and because of the Legendary, I am considering moving to Ranged-focus Ranger build. I'll be curious to see how well I slide if I start aiming for the 20.

When I had my heated monk, I would aim for somewhere in the middle of the boss. Only real time I missed on nightmare was when they were ethereal or some other mechanic or I slide too hard and hit the back bumper.

I was running +24 to hit. Some monsters I hit on a 1.

But this does represent all monks, but thus far my hit rate, in summary, feels like in the mid 80’s.

After getting a few modules, I found that monster AC is shockingly low.

When looking at what a PC can do at single booster +2-4 hit isn't overly surprising and with a Bard and Cleric +5-7 to hit is pretty much a given, presuming they are in the party comp. Monster AC is in the realm of 20 on normal, so hitting on a 13 - 18 is about expected.

An all Rare build easily hits +10 to +14 to hit, and the party can still cash in on +3 from the bard and cleric (maybe even +5 with a 5th level bard + bless + prayer). One would expect that Hardcore AC would roughly match and monster AC would be in the realm of 28 - meaning hitting on a 14-18 with no support and hitting on a 9 to 13 with Bard and Cleric. Unfortunately hardcore AC doesn't scale nearly that far with monster AC more like 23-25, so already the rare build is more like on a 4-10.

It seems the problem only increases at nightmare where it looks like a lot of purple + relic builds are going to be hitting on a 1-5.

I have not run into the case that is reflected in the google doc. Barbarian having the lowest damage bonus of any of the classes compared against one another. I have always seen the Barbarian among the highest if not the highest every time. Crit percentages are off to. Single slider percentages should be multiples of dual sliders.

Kakitahan wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Kakitahan wrote:

Fred K wrote: Rogue with assassin’s crossbow does more damage.

Fred

Do you know, if you equip nightshade's but don't use it for sneak attack (rather a ranged weapon), is the sneak attack damage still doubled if crit is confirmed?

No. See TokenDB for Nightshade. Says, "If the rogue uses this weapon to perform a sneak attack..."

Using the ranged weapon would not provide it.

Ed

“Note: If a rogue making a sneak attack scores a critical hit while wielding Nightshade’s +2 Short Sword, all damage is doubled, including the sneak attack bonus. When using most other weapons, sneak attack damage is not doubled on a crit.”

Above is the quote copied from tokensdb.

In my interpretation, Wielding is your equipped weapons from coaching room. You are wielding your weapons into combat/adventure, but necessarily using.

Above the copied text from tokendb, it specifically says ‘using the weapon’ to
describe a sneak attack functional bonus.

It is assumed to me that it doesn’t. Again clarity is unclear to me.

My interpretation would be that once you switch the content of your hands to your ranged weapon you are no longer wielding your melee weapon. The same is true in reverse.

I think the point I was trying to make is: no accurate comparison of typical damage output levels can be made between Monk/Ranger/others unless you take into account (1) a possible difference in to-hit rates and, possibly much more importantly, (2) a possible difference in critical hit rates.

Ya know I would almost like to stick a go pro above a random combat table one year then just go through the footage to compile some data (or depending on how the footage turned out we could use an Ocr library)

Kirk Bauer wrote: I think the point I was trying to make is: no accurate comparison of typical damage output levels can be made between Monk/Ranger/others unless you take into account (1) a possible difference in to-hit rates and, possibly much more importantly, (2) a possible difference in critical hit rates.

OP does take into account both of those things. You can plug in whatever numbers you like and see how it changes the results.

You have to do really wacky things like "fighters hit 80% of the time and rangers hit 40% of the time" to shake up the rankings.

Get realistic values for Barbarian damage bonus and you will see no need for their legendary since they are so far out front without it.

edwin wrote: Get realistic values for Barbarian damage bonus and you will see no need for their legendary since they are so far out front without it.

Do you have a build to share?

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

edwin wrote: Get realistic values for Barbarian damage bonus and you will see no need for their legendary since they are so far out front without it.

Do you have a build to share?

+51 is the top for 2019, with some truly silly decisions made, like using a Rare weapon so you can benefit from +1 damage on the party card from an Enchanter's Whetstone

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&defaultmenu=141&catid=561&id=245960&start=12#330641