Timeline for Matching TWF to GWF DPR output with magic item
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2023 at 0:37 | comment | added | Xirema | @Jacco Glad to help! | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 21:14 | comment | added | Jacco | @Xirema I can confirm your script is correct! There was indeed an error with my bonus attack trigger logic (I did not correctly pass the number of attacks to the function that calculates the probability to score at least one critical hit). My results now match yours. Thanks for the pointer! | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 18:04 | comment | added | Xirema | @Jacco Let me know if you figure out what it is. As I said, it is possible the mistake is somewhere with my calculations—I'm fairly confident in my calculator, but it's always possible I've made a mistake somewhere with my methodology. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 11:44 | comment | added | Jacco | @Xirema, thanks for the response! I did read through the chat transcript, and your linked homebrewery document : ) the approach is different from mine, but the results should still match of course. I'll try to find the error in my script (with the help of your pointer)! | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 2:43 | comment | added | Xirema |
@Jacco Spinning up my calculator, I ended up reproducing the exact same results. However, I do have a theory: the value you calculated is about 1/3 of the way between the value I calculated and the value I would have calculated if I don't factor in the Bonus Action attack (which is 36.250). So my best guess is that your mistake is somewhere in that logic, i.e. it's wrongly calculating how frequently that attack should happen.
|
|
| Dec 1, 2023 at 0:35 | comment | added | Xirema | @Jacco Well, it has been four years, it's always possible I made a mistake. I'll try to find some time to spin up my calculator and check some of these calculations; in the meantime, you should read through the chat transcript I linked at the end of my answer, and see if your methodology is differing from mine at any step in that process. | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 22:07 | comment | added | Jacco |
@Xirema how sure are you of your GWM calculations? I get consistently lower results, across all char levels, and ACs. For example, at Lvl 13, vs AC 16, I calculate 36.854 where you have 37.973. It isn't a huger difference, but I'm wondering if my calculations are incorrect, or yours. If you are sure yours are correct, I'll need to find the error in my script.
|
|
| Jan 28, 2021 at 2:48 | history | edited | Xirema | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Replaced Mathjax with Markdown
|
| Mar 12, 2019 at 17:40 | comment | added | András | I meant the formatting | |
| Mar 2, 2019 at 6:46 | comment | added | Xirema | @rpgstar I'm modelling the OP's specific constraints, that they're taking the feat at level 4. All the stats starting at level 8 are identical to a Variant Human's stats though, so it only really matters at levels 1-7. | |
| Mar 2, 2019 at 6:23 | comment | added | rpgstar | I noticed you took out the lvl 1 GWM option. technically a variant human could have the feat so the calculation could be valid for that. technically variant but it is a widely used variant. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 20:06 | history | edited | Xirema | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 21 characters in body
|
| Mar 1, 2019 at 17:26 | comment | added | Xirema | @JonathanTurner FYI: I went back and revisited my calculations, and it turns out that my algorithm was somewhat inflating the GWM stats, especially at higher ACs. I amended my conclusion to suggest the correct course of action is to give the +1 at level 11, instead of level 5. The level 5 +1 weapon will actually cause the TWF Fighter to dominate the DPR between levels 5 and 10. It's not by much, but if you're trying to achieve a near-perfect balance between GWF and TWF, you should give the +1 bonus at 11 instead of 5. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 17:23 | history | edited | Xirema | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed some arithmetical mistakes
|
| Mar 1, 2019 at 14:16 | comment | added | rpgstar | @Xirema Could you potentially go through the process of how you calculated those numbers here chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/90441/… | |
| Feb 21, 2019 at 14:52 | comment | added | Jonathan Turner | Thanks so much. I going to pass this to the DM. You guys are awesome, really appreciated | |
| Feb 21, 2019 at 1:11 | comment | added | Xirema | I picked the +1 and +2 modifiers because they seemed to achieve the goal of getting TWF fighting to nearly hit the DPR of GWF fighting. It was just some trial + error. | |
| Feb 20, 2019 at 22:51 | comment | added | Jonathan Turner | Thank you for doing this - amazingly clear. The stats above are based on the idea of adding half your proficiency bonus (rounding up) to attacks and damageÉ Hence the +1 +2 modifiers? | |
| Feb 20, 2019 at 21:43 | history | answered | Xirema | CC BY-SA 4.0 |