kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP (06/12/84)
#R:gloria:-22400:uiucdcs:34500015:000:1719
uiucdcs!kaufman Jun 12 11:27:00 1984
/**** uiucdcs:net.games.rogue / kechkayl@ee / 1:00 am Jun 12, 1984 ****/
I beg to differ! <Flame on!> To-Hit increments will cause you to hit
the creature more often, thus enabling you to do more damage. One
plus to-hit allow you to hit approximately 5% more often. Thus, if you
have two characters with the following:
+1,+0 mace +0,+1 mace,
and these to-hit numbers,
55% 50%,
in 100 swings, the first would do 55 hits, for (2d4)*55 = an average of
275 pts of damage. The second would hit 50 times, and do (2d4)*50 =
250 pts of damage. Sorry, for the amount of times you use your weapon,
I'll always take a plus to hit over a damage plus.
/* ---------- */
No, no, no. The +0,+1 mace does (2d4+1)*50 = 300 points, implying that it is
better at these percentages. Using a little algebra we get:
2d4*(x+5) = (2d4+1)*x when 5x+25 = 6x, or x = 25. In other words, when you are
at a low enough level, or the monster's armor class gives you a < 25% chance
to hit, the to hit bonus benefits you more. Otherwise, the damage bonus is
more advantageous. This sort of result should be intuitively true, since the
higher your chance of hitting, the more beneficial a damage bonus will be,
while the to hit bonus gives the same increase in expected damage, regardless
of the previous hit probability.
On the other hand, a two handed sword, which does (correct me if I'm wrong) 3d6
or an expected 10.5 points of damage per hit, results in the equation:
10.5*(x+5) = 11.5 x, so the point of equality comes at x = 52.5. A weapon
capable of doing more damage does not benefit from the additional damage so
much.
My math major has finally paid off.
Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman)