maybe swap Toughness for Extend Spell, and ev. take Plant Domain instead of Strength if you can get away with less Divine Power
suggestions, improvements, other comments?
Edited By griphook on 01/29/06 00:15
Hi, nice build. You can't go wrong with Clerics; and the WeaponMaster gives you some nice added melee punch. I like your use of Rogue for both Tumble point dumps as well as getting the Rapier proficiency (nicely done, I had to double-check that one). And, I assume that you went with 13 levels of Cleric pre-epic to make the most out of Divine Power (15 BAB pre-epic).
There are a couple of things I would do differently, though. And these are more differences in style, so take them with a grain of salt.
- First, I would dump BlindFight for a Metamagic feat; most likely Empower Spell. While Blindfight is a great feat to have, it seems that you might be able to get more mileage out of Empowered Bulls Strength / Endurance; using the spell True Sight or Invisibility Purge to deal with Concealed enemies.
- Second, I would drop Toughness for a Greater Strength. Yes Toughness is nice, but again, you are a Cleric so you can cast Endurance for the same or better, affect. Of course, you will end up with an odd Strength stat (27), but since you most likely be buffing it, it will come up even about half the time.
Again, these are just personal style choices so please take them as such. All-in-all, it looks as if it could dish a nice bit of pain.
Cheers.
I disagree about dropping Blindfight - True Sight doesn't help against enemies with Self Concealment V or monks using Empty Body. Having Blindfight really helps against those types (reduces your 50% chance of missing to 35%, much better).
Toughness is expendable - if you want to pick up extend or empower I would put it there. Empower will let you get another 2 points out of Endurance, giving you the same final HP as unempowered endurance plus toughness, so maybe take that instead. Not bad either way. Nice build.
I disagree about dropping Blindfight - True Sight doesn't help against enemies with Self Concealment V or monks using Empty Body. Having Blindfight really helps against those types (reduces your 50% chance of missing to 35%, much better). TM
Really? Oops, I thought it did. In that case, yes, Blindfight shouldn't be dropped.
Thanks for the info Tattoed Monk.
Quote: Tattoed Monk (reduces your 50% chance of missing to 35%, much better)
Might I ask... how do you figure that? I would think that since you get a second roll on a failed attempt it would be reduced to 25% quite accurately.
Quote: Tattoed Monk (reduces your 50% chance of missing to 35%, much better)
Might I ask... how do you figure that? I would think that since you get a second roll on a failed attempt it would be reduced to 25% quite accurately.
Well, it's easy. You just think to yourself 25%, then let your finger slip and hit 35% instead....
It should be 25%, as you noticed...
TM
I know that it is commonly held that Blindfighting fives you a 25% chance vs. 50% chance, but is this really accurate? If you miss on your first attempt, the reroll still is 50% chance to miss again. Can it really be statistically represented as a 25% chance? If I flip a coin 9 times, and all 9 times it lands on heads, I still only have a 50/50 chance for it to land a tails on my 10th flip, not a 90%. _________________ Got Hommlet? World of Greyhawk Action Server (with 1/2 price ales on Mondays!)
Quote: Tattoed Monk (reduces your 50% chance of missing to 35%, much better)
Might I ask... how do you figure that? I would think that since you get a second roll on a failed attempt it would be reduced to 25% quite accurately.
Well, it's easy. You just think to yourself 25%, then let your finger slip and hit 35% instead....
It should be 25%, as you noticed...
TM
I know that it is commonly held that Blindfighting fives you a 25% chance vs. 50% chance, but is this really accurate? If you miss on your first attempt, the reroll still is 50% chance to miss again. Can it really be statistically represented as a 25% chance? If I flip a coin 9 times, and all 9 times it lands on heads, I still only have a 50/50 chance for it to land a tails on my 10th flip, not a 90%.
I did say quite accurately, did I not?
Statistically the easiest way to put it is probably like this: you attack 20 times. With a 50% miss chance every time, you hit 10 times (in theory). Now, obviously you miss 10 times, too and with Blind-Fight you get to reroll; each of these rolls has a 50% chance to miss, thus you hit another 5 times for 15 hits total.
Difference: 10/20 vs. 15/20, 50% vs. 75% Of course this is just theoretical, it's possible to miss 20 times in a row, too...
I know that it is commonly held that Blindfighting fives you a 25% chance vs. 50% chance, but is this really accurate? If you miss on your first attempt, the reroll still is 50% chance to miss again. Can it really be statistically represented as a 25% chance? If I flip a coin 9 times, and all 9 times it lands on heads, I still only have a 50/50 chance for it to land a tails on my 10th flip, not a 90%.
Finneous gave a good example already, but the statistical reason is that only the misses get re-rolled. If you hit, you don't re-roll. That makes the second roll reduce the odds of missing, even though it has the same chance as the first roll.
Finneous gave a good example already, but the statistical reason is that only the misses get re-rolled. If you hit, you don't re-roll. That makes the second roll reduce the odds of missing, even though it has the same chance as the first roll.
Right, I understand the mechanics behind it, I understand how it works, and when it works, and why it's commonly held to reduce 50% to 25%. I understand how these numbers are mathematically derived. I only question whether 25% is statisically accurate, that is, are two 50% rolls equivalent to a 25% chance? or is it safer to say 50% chance but with a "re-roll" on failure. I suppose it's close enough for government work, ergo close enough for me, I just though it was worth reflecting on for a moment, and my deepest apologies for the slight threadjack. _________________ Got Hommlet? World of Greyhawk Action Server (with 1/2 price ales on Mondays!)
Right, I understand the mechanics behind it, I understand how it works, and when it works, and why it's commonly held to reduce 50% to 25%. I understand how these numbers are mathematically derived. I only question whether 25% is statisically accurate, that is, are two 50% rolls equivalent to a 25% chance?
Yep, it is statistically equivalent. The odds of any set of successive rolls all failing is equal to the odds of a single roll of the successive ones multiplied together (0.5*0.5 in this case).
Quote: or is it safer to say 50% chance but with a "re-roll" on failure.
Both come to the same thing, so fell free to use whichever you like.
Quote: I suppose it's close enough for government work, ergo close enough for me, I just though it was worth reflecting on for a moment, and my deepest apologies for the slight threadjack.
No problem - my fault for the original typo that brought it up, anyway. It's probably one of the few ways to get some people to actually think through some statistics, anyway. NWN as an educational motivator...
TM
Been playing around a bit more, and I did manage to fit in dev-crit ... is it worth the cost? You tell me
You can ev. switch Blind Fight for another feat of your choice, otherwise there's not much room to muck around.
Thoughts? Comments?
From a powerbuild point of view, yes, Dev Crit is worth it (you dropped Toughness and Armor Skin, right?).
I don't like Dev Crit, though, it makes it too easy to kill things. You would have a DC of 38 or 44 with buffed str, on top of your 10-20 crit range. Except for crit-immunes and a few characters with all the fort boosting feats or tons of CoT levels or Paladin's with high Cha, it will work against most characters pretty often. I find it takes the challenge out of too many enemies and makes it boring.
From a powerbuild point of view, yes, Dev Crit is worth it (you dropped Toughness and Armor Skin, right?).
I don't like Dev Crit, though, it makes it too easy to kill things. You would have a DC of 38 or 44 with buffed str, on top of your 10-20 crit range. Except for crit-immunes and a few characters with all the fort boosting feats or tons of CoT levels or Paladin's with high Cha, it will work against most characters pretty often. I find it takes the challenge out of too many enemies and makes it boring.
TM
You may be right for a lot of settings, but the PW im playing on has quite tough epic areas, where you should kills the mobs best fast, so you do get in good shape to the bosses ...
It may be also worthwhile to take another 3 WM levels for 3 less cleric levels. Looses level 9 spells, but brings 2 more AB (with epic prowess), or 1 AB and 2 AC (with armour skin).
