Damage question "I sound like a noob"

[Grelko]

I've been playing since the mid 90s, but this is going to sound like I just started playing today lol... I never looked into it, I just played the game all these years.


Let's say you have a Dagger (1d4) (+7, +4)

How exactly is the damage calculated?

I used to think that it used D&D type rules "dice rolling", so instead of the dagger being (1+7 d 4+4) , it would actually be (8d8) or 8-64 dmg.


I'm guessing that the way it actually works is (1d4) +7 to hit, +4 to dmg.

So the dagger is really doing (1d4) +4 dmg, or technically it would be a (1d8)? "If this is correct, a simple yes will suffice"

I notice my "to hit" for melee and shooting goes up each time my character levels up, but the damage is always signifigantly lower than I thought it would be. Even if I'm using something like a katana (3d5) +10, +10).

[Gwarl]

1d4+4 isn't the same as 1d8.

1d4+4 is 5-8 damage (average 6.5)
1d8 is 1-8 damage (average 4.5)
3d5+10 is 13-25 damage (average 19)

[Derakon]

You're right that the first number is to-hit, and the second is to-dam. To-dam is massively more important than to-hit. You can compare the influence of to-hit by looking at your chance to hit a monster before and after using a Blessing scroll or Heroism potion. Both effects boost your to-hit slightly, but it has a negligible impact (maybe 1-2%) on your actual hit chance.

to-hit does however slightly affect your chance of getting critical hits, though. And in long fights, an extra 1-2% chance to hit can be significant. But on the whole you're much better-served by boosting your damage than your accuracy.

[Grelko]

1d4+4 isn't the same as 1d8.

1d4+4 is 5-8 damage (average 6.5)

Thank you for the quick answer.

I forgot about adding the +4 to the dmg at the end. Thanks for clearing that up.

Basically, "if" you hit, the +4 dmg would be added to the stack no matter what, then the actual (1d4) of the dagger would happen. (not including monster resists etc.)

You can compare the influence of to-hit by looking at your chance to hit a monster before and after using a Blessing scroll or Heroism potion.

I noticed this after equipping a ring of the mouse. -12 to hit haha

to-hit does however slightly affect your chance of getting critical hits, though. And in long fights, an extra 1-2% chance to hit can be significant. But on the whole you're much better-served by boosting your damage than your accuracy.

Do you happen to know if anyone has figured out the actual probabilities of getting a critical hit, when compared to your actual "to-hit" chance?

Also, how much more is a critical hit anyways 2x, 3x? Would the extra +4 dmg on the dagger get a boost also?


Talking about this makes me want to start a new character with rings of damage and see how far I can get just by punching.
I did get pretty far after enchanting the heck out of a pick though. That was fun.

[Pete Mack]

Damage is roughly 2x more valuable than hit probability, depending on the amount of damage you are already doing. That said, this really only applies at the end of the game when your base damage is already endgame high. When it's low (like the 1d4 +4 dagger), extra damage makes a huge, huge difference. The opposite extreme is a cl 40 HE Mage with a Mace of Disruption of Gondolin*. A +22 ring of accuracy is actually a very viable choice for him, until he gets zero-fail Mass Banishment. (And yes, I've done this more than once.)

* Or some other weapon doing preposterous nominal base damage.

[luneya]

Damage is roughly 2x more valuable than hit probability, depending on the amount of damage you are already doing. That said, this really only applies at the end of the game when your base damage is already endgame high. When it's low (like the 1d4 +4 dagger), extra damage makes a huge, huge difference. The opposite extreme is a cl 40 HE Mage with a Mace of Disruption of Gondolin*. A +22 ring of accuracy is actually a very viable choice for him, until he gets zero-fail Mass Banishment. (And yes, I've done this more than once.)

* Or some other weapon doing preposterous nominal base damage.

It also depends very much on how many blows you can get, and thus on your class, str, and dex. For an early game warrior, wielding a +4 dagger is huge, as you get the extra damage on each blow, so it's really +12. For someone like a priest or a mage who plans to actually use melee (not generally recommended in the early game; relying on spell and wand of magic missile is safer), you get only one blow, so it often makes more sense to take a weapon with good damage dice and try to boost accuracy (helping you land the big blow in the first place, and also to crit).

[Grelko]

Thanks for the information, I really appreciate all the help.

Now, what if it's a weapon of "slaying etc"?

I just got a halberd of slay animal. (3d5) (+5, +5)

It says it does 24.2 vs animals but 14.8 vs others.

3d5+5 = 8-20 , average 14, but shows 14.8?

This would make sense if the magical property "slay" takes the minimum dmg and adds 10% to it. 14+ 0.8 = 14.8.

Could it be adding a small bonus from my "to-hit" chance (25+4 atm, -1 from armor), or maybe from having 13 dex and 13 str? Or is this a bug?

Also, what is the bonus for "slay"? or does anyone have a link to the math regarding all of this?


If anyone wonders, normally I use a half-elf ranger, standard roll, not point based. I'm a bit OCD, so IDC about the stats as long as it has hazel eyes, wavy black hair and an average or fair complexion.

I never go full bow, spells or melee, it's just a mix of everything. Around Dl 25, I switch to mainly bow "depending on drops", but keep a decent melee weapon incase anything gets close.

[Sideways]

The animal slay doubles the dice, turning the 3d5 into (3d5)*2 and thus providing another 9 damage per blow. (Some other slays triple or even quintuple the dice.)
That the averages given are 24.2 and 14.8 instead of 23 and 14 is probably because it factors in critical hits, but there are other factors that go into that calculation; for example, the damage is affected by your strength, an effect that becomes more noticeable with high STR.

[Grelko]

This is very interesting, I'll need to pay attention to my damage a bit more closely from now on. Thank you.

[Derakon]

Do you happen to know if anyone has figured out the actual probabilities of getting a critical hit, when compared to your actual "to-hit" chance?

It's complicated, to a ridiculous and unnecessary degree. But you improve your chances by being more accurate, and you get better critical hits (more bonus damage) by using a heavier weapon. When the game says "it was a good hit" or "it was a superb hit", etc., the message you get corresponds to the quality of the critical.

I honestly wouldn't worry about it, though. Functionally there's little you can do to encourage crits, and you can see what their average impact is on your damage via the 'I'nspect screen -- its average damage takes crits into account.

[Pete Mack]

@Derakon--
Functionally there's a huge amount you can do towards criticals...at the end of the game. If you fight Morgoth with full buffs you may be doing an extra 30 points (5%) of nominal damage (not to mention 5-10% more from increased hit rate...or even more for a priest.) But yeah, early on you can mostly ignore it (though you can't always ignore the other benefits of buffing.)

[bio_hazard]

I'm playing one of the new magic system versions (4.1.2-51-g8ce9bc5-dirty)

I have a weak druid, STR 15, with one blow with each of the following 2 weapons.

Short sword of *Slay Animal* 1d7 (+2 +6). Average damage 14.4 vs Animals, 10.1 others

Dagger of *Slay Undead* 1d4 (+4 +8). Average damage 21.7 vs undead, 11.1 vs others.

I feel like the Slay animal should be higher against animals?

[Derakon]

You go from 1d7+6 to 2d7+6 (slay animal is an x2 multiplier). The extra d7 adds, on average, 4 points of damage: average of 1dX is (1 + X) / 2. Then you get a smidge extra because your crits are slightly better. Looks right to me.

The dagger goes from 1d4+8 to 5d4+8 (*slay* undead is an x5 multiplier). That works out to an extra 10 points on average, again plus a little due to better crits.

[bio_hazard]

But shouldn't *Slay animal* be at least 3x?

[Derakon]

Should, perhaps, but the game simply doesn't have a *Slay* Animal brand, so *Slay* Animal egos just have the 2x multiplier and some extra properties.

I imagine that with all the extra refactoring Nick's been doing lately, this is probably easier to fix than it used to be.