Constitution vs. others

[Raenvan]

The point is that Constitution could be the most overpowered, and at the same time underrated attribute in Deadfire! Offensive stats like Might, Dex and Per helps to hit harder, faster or with higher probability with up to +3% per point, and easily catch your eye. One extra point in Con doesn't increase DPS, but allows to last (and deliver damage) for 5% longer time. Comparing to the other defensive attribute, current Resolve, the difference grows even larger, as one point there saves only 2% damage in average.

 

I'm afraid if Constitution bonus were smaller (like in early PoE1), almost nobody would consider raising it. On the other hand, the current bonus seems to favor pumping Con more than anything else. I'd prefer if the current Constitution bonus were relaxed to comparable levels (say 2-3%), and some new factor could be brought into play. Like effect on number of allowed injuries, or on health loss percentage after injuries, etc. These have been already mentioned in other topics. Any thoughts?

[AndreaColombo]

CON used to be 3% until patch 2.0 in Pillars of Eternity, if memory serves. Back then it was the dump stat par excellence. At 5% it’s still dumpable, but it hurts more to do so.

 

I guess it boils down to play style, mostly. I wouldn’t pump CON if it gave 10% as I prefer offense to defense.

[MaxQuest]

I'd prefer if the current Constitution bonus were relaxed to comparable levels (say 2-3%), and some new factor could be brought into play. Like effect on number of allowed injuries, or on health loss percentage after injuries, etc.

Hmm, I'm not convinced enough about necessity of halving the CON bonus from 5% to 2-3%.

But, being able to get rid of injuries over time could be handy. E.g. it would take 24h of ingame time for a 10 CON char to auto-heal from his injury, and only 18h (or 12h) if he had 20CON.

 

These have been already mentioned in other topics. Any thoughts?

What I'm currently thinking, is:

- imagine 2 characters: [A] and ; They have 100 hp, and hit 10 damage per second.

- if you put them to hit each other, they will end up in draw by killing the opponent in 10s.

 

- now imagine that they have got some free stats. And [A] has doubled his damage. While has doubled his HP.

- they will still kill each other in 10s. But if you let them in the game world, and assuming their hp is enough to not get killed, [A] will be finishing combat twice faster than . And if it's an n vs n situation, on average [A] character would be killing his target faster, and be able to help another party member by making it a local 2x1. That's also the reason why many games have defensive stuff provide a higher bonus than a mirrored offensive stuff. 

 

- and then there is also character [C], who embraced a balanced approach, with: 150 hp and 15 damage attack per second. [C] is able to kill [A] in 7s, while [A] would need 8s to kill [C]. [C] is able to kill in 14s, while would need 15s to kill [C].

 

- our task as a player, is to find this [C] (since he's not always an arithmetic media between the tank and the glass cannon) and then shift his dps/sturdiness depending on our playstyle and party composition.

Edited December 15, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Raenvan]

What I'm currently thinking, is:

- imagine 2 characters: [A] and ; They have 100 hp, and hit 10 damage per second.

- if you put them to hit each other, they will end up in draw by killing the opponent in 10s.

 

- now imagine that they have got some free stats. And [A] has doubled his damage. While has doubled his HP.

- they will still kill each other in 10s. But if you let them in the game world, and assuming their hp is enough to not get killed, [A] will be finishing combat twice faster than . And if it's an n vs n situation, on average [A] character would be killing his target faster, and be able to help another party member by making it a local 2x1. That's also the reason why many games have defensive stuff provide a higher bonus than a mirrored offensive stuff. 

 

- and then there is also character [C], who embraced a balanced approach, with: 150 hp and 15 damage attack per second. [C] is able to kill [A] in 7s, while [A] would need 8s to kill [C]. [C] is able to kill in 14s, while would need 15s to kill [C].

 

- our task as a player, is to find this [C] (since he's not always an arithmetic media between the tank and the glass cannon) and then shift his dps/sturdiness depending on our playstyle and party composition.

 

 

Nice examples, although you assumed equal bonus from Might and Con. This is balanced face-to-face, but the offensive one is better against multiple foes, as you said.

 

In this beta, B gets +50% Health from +10 Con (150 HP, 10 DPS), while A gets +30% damage from +10 Might (100 HP, 13 DPS). B kills A in 10 seconds, and is alive with 20 HP. Considering 1:1 fights, B is definite winner.

 

My question is: What little advantage should Con provide on the top of the balanced +3% Health per point (face-to-face case) to compensate for the disadvantage in group fight? To my opinion, it could be related logically to the new Health/Injury system.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Raenvan

[dunehunter]

 

What I'm currently thinking, is:

- imagine 2 characters: [A] and ; They have 100 hp, and hit 10 damage per second.

- if you put them to hit each other, they will end up in draw by killing the opponent in 10s.

 

- now imagine that they have got some free stats. And [A] has doubled his damage. While has doubled his HP.

- they will still kill each other in 10s. But if you let them in the game world, and assuming their hp is enough to not get killed, [A] will be finishing combat twice faster than . And if it's an n vs n situation, on average [A] character would be killing his target faster, and be able to help another party member by making it a local 2x1. That's also the reason why many games have defensive stuff provide a higher bonus than a mirrored offensive stuff.

 

- and then there is also character [C], who embraced a balanced approach, with: 150 hp and 15 damage attack per second. [C] is able to kill [A] in 7s, while [A] would need 8s to kill [C]. [C] is able to kill in 14s, while would need 15s to kill [C].

 

- our task as a player, is to find this [C] (since he's not always an arithmetic media between the tank and the glass cannon) and then shift his dps/sturdiness depending on our playstyle and party composition.

 

Nice examples, although you assumed equal bonus from Might and Con. This is balanced face-to-face, but the offensive one is better against multiple foes, as you said.

 

In this beta, B gets +50% Health from +10 Con (150 HP, 10 DPS), while A gets +30% damage from +10 Might (100 HP, 13 DPS). B kills A in 10 seconds, and is alive with 20 HP. Considering 1:1 fights, B is definite winner.

 

My question is: What little advantage should Con provide on the top of the balanced +3% Health per point (face-to-face case) to compensate for the disadvantage in group fight? To my opinion, it could be related logically to the new Health/Injury system.

Your comparison has a good point.

 

However in battle it’s about how fast you kill enemies. The faster u takedown enemies, the easier the battle is. And health problem can always solved by healing.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

I'm not sure there's a way to buff Constitution any further.

 

The problem seems like almost anything you do to fix Con is either giving it "hit points with extra steps" (i.e., incoming critical hit reduction) or something that some other stat (Resolve?) probably needs more (incoming debuff duration reduction, etc.) 

 

I feel like they should get resolve and per sorted out and  otherwise leave Con like it is for now. It's not a *bad* stat and health tanking can be really solid if you build for it.  Maybe down the road give it some gravy once the other stats are sorted out.

 

Some interaction with the injury system could work but you have the incrementation problem; you can't heal ten percent of an injury.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[KDubya]

I like Constitution giving +5% health per point. i like durable as a design goal for my characters, especially for frontliners as when you are KO'd your DPS is zero.

 

I like it enough that I tend to go with a 15 con for +25% hitpoints for my frontliners. If you knock it back to +3% than it becomes pretty worthless to pump and thus becomes easy to dump.

 

The current health/injury system is fine as is. If my main damage dealer gets an injury that reduces their damage output or a frontliner is injured such that they can not perform their duties then I'll be resting. If that means resting everytime I get one injury  then that's what I'll do. Without any time constraints on quests I have all the time in the world and I'll be buying my Hardtack by the ton

 

The only stat changes I'd like to see are moving the deflection bonus from Resolve and adding that to Perception

[Raenvan]

I like Constitution giving +5% health per point. i like durable as a design goal for my characters, especially for frontliners as when you are KO'd your DPS is zero.

 

I like it enough that I tend to go with a 15 con for +25% hitpoints for my frontliners. If you knock it back to +3% than it becomes pretty worthless to pump and thus becomes easy to dump.

 

Your 15 Con frontliners make sense, but 20 Con dwarves would serve even better, given the 5% HP bonus. This example also proves that Con is overpowered. 

 

I'm not sure there's a way to buff Constitution any further.

 

The problem seems like almost anything you do to fix Con is either giving it "hit points with extra steps" (i.e., incoming critical hit reduction) or something that some other stat (Resolve?) probably needs more (incoming debuff duration reduction, etc.) 

 

I feel like they should get resolve and per sorted out and  otherwise leave Con like it is for now. It's not a *bad* stat and health tanking can be really solid if you build for it.  Maybe down the road give it some gravy once the other stats are sorted out.

 

Some interaction with the injury system could work but you have the incrementation problem; you can't heal ten percent of an injury.

 

Yes, Con is less inbalanced than current Resolve, but I guess that some fine-tuning is possible without increment problems. After base bonus relaxed to +3% Health, one of following options might be implemented:

1. Current health loss per injury is 25%, and will be cut to 15% in next beta. These seem just arbitrary numbers to me. How about Constitution-dependent attrition, such as (30-Con) or (25-Con) percent?
2. New beta will somehow decide what is really bad injury. Let the damage threshold depend on Con, give the same +3% or +5% per point bonus to it. These yield 130% or 150% threshold for a 20-Con frontliner, and 79% or 65% for a 3-Con lurker. Roughly half for the lurker.

[KDubya]

There is no real reason not to rest as often as you want so reducing the benefit of Con to 3% and having some sort of adjustment on injuries does not sound very appealing to me.

 

If its -15%, -20% or -30% due to an injury the answer is always rest after the second injury and possibly rest after the first.

 

In PoE it was shown that at 3% Health per Constitution it was a bad stat and frequently dumped as it made little difference. At 5% dumping is painful enough that you'd need a really good reason to do so.

 

Your contention that a 20 con frontliner is better than a 15 con frontliner I find fault with. For me the use of those 5 stat points in strength or Intellect or Dexterity is more valuable than having another 25% health. I design frontliners to be durable damage dealers not some sort of meatbag target drone.

[Boeroer]

Raising CON from 3 to 18 doesn't make any sense if you don't get killed with 3 CON.

 

The advantage high CON gives you is only circumstancial while the advantage of higher accuracy or higher damage nearly always applies.

 

That's why even 5% per point of CON doesn't feel very powerful while a 3% multiplicative gain of damage per hit or attack speed or healing power feels more useful.

 

If you play certain build like ones that rely on abilities that trigger at 50% endurance or drain you health constantly then it may be different. But the common frontliner would be stupid to raise CON from 15 to 20 if he doesn't get knocked out a lot. While those 5 points wouldn't improve his survivability (what's to improve if you don't go down?) the same 5 points would help him more if he put them into DEX, MIG or PER. There is no "damage/accuracy" cap as there is an survivability cap. Well there would be if you'd one-shot most enemies all the time.

 

That's the main reason why CON should give a lot higher bonus per point. It's benefit is capped at some point.

[Boeroer]

Raising CON from 3 to 18 doesn't make any sense if you don't get killed with 3 CON.

 

The advantage high CON gives you is only circumstancial, while the advantage of higher accuracy or higher damage nearly always applies.

 

That's why even 5% per point of CON doesn't feel very powerful while a 3% multiplicative gain of damage per hit or attack speed or healing power feels more useful.

 

If you play certain build like ones that rely on abilities that trigger at 50% endurance or drain you health constantly then it may be different. But the common frontliner would be stupid to raise CON from 15 to 20 if he didn't get knocked out a lot. While those 5 points wouldn't improve his survivability (what's to improve if you don't go down?) the same 5 points would help him more if he put them into DEX, MIG or PER. There is no "damage/accuracy" cap as there is an survivability cap. Well there would be if you'd one-shot most enemies all the time.

 

That's the main reason why CON should give a lot higher bonus per point. Its benefit is capped at some point.

[Raenvan]

There is no real reason not to rest as often as you want so reducing the benefit of Con to 3% and having some sort of adjustment on injuries does not sound very appealing to me.

 

If its -15%, -20% or -30% due to an injury the answer is always rest after the second injury and possibly rest after the first.

 

As far as resting isn't limited, you are absolutely right... 

 

Raising CON from 3 to 18 doesn't make any sense if you don't get killed with 3 CON.

 

The advantage high CON gives you is only circumstancial while the advantage of higher accuracy or higher damage nearly always applies.

 

That's why even 5% per point of CON doesn't feel very powerful while a 3% multiplicative gain of damage per hit or attack speed or healing power feels more useful.

 

If you play certain build like ones that rely on abilities that trigger at 50% endurance or drain you health constantly then it may be different. But the common frontliner would be stupid to raise CON from 15 to 20 if he doesn't get knocked out a lot. While those 5 points wouldn't improve his survivability (what's to improve if you don't go down?) the same 5 points would help him more if he put them into DEX, MIG or PER. There is no "damage/accuracy" cap as there is an survivability cap. Well there would be if you'd one-shot most enemies all the time.

 

That's the main reason why CON should give a lot higher bonus per point. It's benefit is capped at some point.

 

Thanks, these arguments make lot of sense, but I still miss something. To your opinion, 15 Con is almost always enough, but other attributes are worth raising beyond 15. It may be translated to such a statement that +5 Con is as effective as +6/7/8... Might. Which means that +5% Health bonus is yet overpowered

[KDubya]

No one here is thinking that Constitution is OP at 5%.

 

I'm sloppy with healing and like the cushion on PotD that a 15 con gives me. Others like Boereor and AndreaColumbo are more efficient than I am and tend to stress offensive stats more.

 

The point Boereor was making is that all you need for health is enough = 1 to win the fight. If you factor in the ease of resting you can extrapolate that as long as one of your team survives with one hit point that that is all you need, any more is essentially 'wasted'.

 

From that I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Constitution is OP, instead what the message to take away is that winning with one hitpoint is the most efficient you could get.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

No one here is thinking that Constitution is OP at 5%.

 

I'm sloppy with healing and like the cushion on PotD that a 15 con gives me. Others like Boereor and AndreaColumbo are more efficient than I am and tend to stress offensive stats more.

 

The point Boereor was making is that all you need for health is enough = 1 to win the fight. If you factor in the ease of resting you can extrapolate that as long as one of your team survives with one hit point that that is all you need, any more is essentially 'wasted'.

 

From that I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Constitution is OP, instead what the message to take away is that winning with one hitpoint is the most efficient you could get.

 

 

Yeah, this is why Constitution needs something that isn't either more hit points or mathematically equivalent to more hit points (i.e., incoming graze to miss or whatever).  There needs to be a reason to take each additional point of Constitution, that isnt' just hit points. 

 

A percentage chance to resist injuries might do but seems insufficient.  Best idea I can think of might be something like reducing incoming affliction duration by 1% /  increasing inspiration duration by 1% per point., but that's just stealing an idea from the Resolve thread.

[MaxQuest]

My question is: What little advantage should Con provide on the top of the balanced +3% Health per point (face-to-face case) to compensate for the disadvantage in group fight? To my opinion, it could be related logically to the new Health/Injury system.

A few possible advantages, from the top of my head:

- ability to heal-up from wounds, or a chance to resist gaining a wound

- lower damage from incoming overpenetration

- lower incoming damage from diseases and poisons (my favorite so far, as it could potentially lead to appearance of few niche builds)

- incoming affliction duration or crit-to-hit conversion (although I'd prefer this to be linked to RES rather than CON)

..but none of these are group-fight only.

 

Not to mention that I'm still not convinced that current +5% should be nerfed, and "+3% Health per point" is balanced even in 1x1 situations, because:

 

- my previous examples were more suiting for pvp; in single-player RPGs CON has a tendency to become irrelevant past a certain point. Like Boeroer has mentioned: you need just that amount to not die, and if you have more it's probably overkill; Sure having high MIG can be theoretically an overkill as well (for example there multiple enemies and you one-shot each of them anyway, so no point in rising MIG further). But we don't really face such situations in practice due to encounter design.

- deadfire is a game with limited resources. For many classes you can cast only that many abilities per encounter, e.g: 2 shining beacons, 4 flames of devotions (if you are lvl x), etc. Pumping the damage of these limited abilities often results in higher impact, because you can move on quicker.

- existence of hard cc. If you can completely control enemy, your CON becomes less relevant. Not to mention that by bumping MIG you can deliver more damage in the same time-window offered by cc effect.

- existence of DoTs that benefit from both MIG and INT. +3% increase from MIG can translate into +5.45% if you cast a DoT at 20 INT.

 

I have been mentioning a couple of times that it feels to me that PoE1 promotes party specialization into either [high-dps/burst + hard-cc] agile team or [sturdy/steady + soft-cc] party which grinds enemies down slowly and mostly via periodic damage. And... it is great that both approaches are viable.

Edited December 16, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Raenvan]

From that I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Constitution is OP, instead what the message to take away is that winning with one hitpoint is the most efficient you could get.

 

No offense, but I'd like to explain once more why Con is OP to my opinion. We've run through numerical examples in replies no. 3 and 4, here let's replay a 1-to-1 fight along your lines. I've learnt the lesson that only one thing matters: who survives with at least one HP left.

 

 

Your contention that a 20 con frontliner is better than a 15 con frontliner I find fault with. For me the use of those 5 stat points in strength or Intellect or Dexterity is more valuable than having another 25% health. I design frontliners to be durable damage dealers not some sort of meatbag target drone.

 

Assume two pure warriors (no buffs, spells, whatever): Durable frontliner first with 15 Con and 20 Might/Str, and Meatbag second having 20 Con and 15 Might/Str. Durable delivers 13% more damage than Meatbag (+15% nominal), and Meatbag has 20% HP more than Durable (+25% nominal). In contrary to what should be the "good" outcome, it's (mostly) Meatbag who wins with few HPs left.

 

While I admit that such 1-to-1 encounters are not and should not be typical, I do believe that a well-balanced game should give some adequate answer to this problem. Anyone knows an answer?

[Erik-Dirk]

Raenvan you can't simplify combat mechanics to this degree, you also need to consider:

High accuracy: With proc on hit ability (stun).

Faster attack: Again stun

Set healing: I.e. +20 health (Much more useful to low HP characters)
Items that increase health by a set amount:
Resistance to afflictions: 

 

Hopefully you get the idea.

[Answermancer]

I do believe that a well-balanced game should give some adequate answer to this problem.

I don't really agree.

 

The game is balanced around group encounters, so I don't think that what you're describing is required to be "well-balanced".

[Boeroer]

I can't really see how a one-on-one PvP duel can prove anything. It's the same (wrong) approach as in PoE where people wanted to show how OP the rogue is (which is also wrong) by doing virtual duels against monk or fighter.

 

And, more importantly: there is healing!

 

This is a pve party based game. There is a reason why CON got raised from 3% to 5%. The effect of higher endurance is important if you always struggle with surviving encounters but once you manage to win them without getting knocked out more CON is completely useless (as I already pointed out).

 

Picking one (irrelevant) example where CON is more beneficial than another stat and then demanding a fix of that situation is... don't know... funny?

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

I'll put it this way; I think the stronger argument in favor of buffing Con further (in addition to the 5% bonus) is the fact that pretty much everyone dumps it a little bit.

 

This seems especially true now that there's no longer the endurance/health split and there's no need for a high "max" health. 

 

All you really have to have now is "enough health to survive between heals." 

 

That said, almost nobody ever takes Con to 3; it's still useful; so I don't think changes & improvements to Con should be a priority, just maybe a long term polishing goal.

[Boeroer]

I think CON was very useful in PoE where we had endurance and healt. Especially for meat shields with low deflection like barbs it was very beneficial to raise CON. But basically every build that relied on healing instead of high defenses to survive did benefit from high CON.

 

Now there's only health - which can easily be healed during encounter. That makes CON the number two dump stat after RES (in the current beta version).

 

After the next patch it will be number one. I can't see why it would need a nerf. I would even give it a boost. I guess I would give a healing bonus if you have high CON and a healing maluses if you have low.

[dunehunter]

I think CON was very useful in PoE where we had endurance and healt. Especially for meat shields with low deflection like barbs it was very beneficial to raise CON. But basically every build that relied on healing instead of high defenses to survive did benefit from high CON.

 

Now there's only health - which can easily be healed during encounter. That makes CON the number two dump stat after RES (in the current beta version).

 

After the next patch it will be number one. I can't see why it would need a nerf. I would even give it a boost. I guess I would give a healing bonus if you have high CON and a healing maluses if you have low.

Yeah this was my suggestion too in a similar post. I think this is a good idea.

[Raenvan]

I can't really see how a one-on-one PvP duel can prove anything. It's the same (wrong) approach as in PoE where people wanted to show how OP the rogue is (which is also wrong) by doing virtual duels against monk or fighter.

 

And, more importantly: there is healing!

 

This is a pve party based game. There is a reason why CON got raised from 3% to 5%. The effect of higher endurance is important if you always struggle with surviving encounters but once you manage to win them without getting knocked out more CON is completely useless (as I already pointed out).

 

I admit that the exaggerated example was indeed oversimplified, and mostly irrelevant in party-based combat. Consider now typical group encounters.

 

One might want to analyze what happens if Constitution of all characters were raised by one point at the expense of one Might or Dex, while strategy remained the same. Simply speaking, all his damage dealing slows down by 3% (provided that spells hold out) and all his characters' HPs increase by 5%. It would be be surprising if AI adapted anyhow, so his characters can last 5% longer in average.

 

If the encounter was victorious with original stats, odds are high to win with modified ones, too. More precisely, odds are at least as high as in a replay with original stats, given the random nature of rolls.

 

If the encounter was lost with original attributes, one usually replays with revised strategy. That's fine, and can always work. However, if the encounter was only marginally lost, there's a slight chance that it could have been just doable with the same strategy and modified stats. At least, odds can be slightly higher than odds of a replay with unmodified stats.

 

High accuracy: With proc on hit ability (stun).

Faster attack: Again stun

Set healing: I.e. +20 health (Much more useful to low HP characters)

Items that increase health by a set amount:

Resistance to afflictions: 

 

Few words on criticism. It was claimed that high Con was unnecessary because healing is so abundant. It can be true, but as shown above, raising Con doesn't make things worse, either. -1 Per or Dex decreases the frequency of inflicting criticals and afflictions like stun, sure. Might to Con redistribution seems to be neutral, though.

 

It's very intuitive to think that further increase of Constitution is meaningless, if encounters are mostly won. However, raising it while decreasing Might (Str, or maybe Dex) doesn't hurt, either. The threat to very large Con might be the chance to run out of spells and abilities during the extended combat phase. In this case, further bumping is not advised.

 

PS. The intention here is neither demanding radical change of an approved attribute based on fictive examples, nor pushing full Con parties. Just to show that raising Constitution is a very viable approach.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Raenvan

[KDubya]

The armor and penetration discussion in another thread gave me an idea:

 

• What if instead of dexterity and wearing armor, you instead went heavy constitution and went naked? Consider one with 16 dex and one with 16 con 
•  
  • ​​The naked guy has robe for 3 armor,
    • ​Two hander attack is 0.7 attack and 3.0 recovery, 3.7 seconds total
    • ​Dual wield slow is 0.7 attack and 1.5 recovery, 2.2 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.5 attack and 1.0 recovery. 1.5 seconds total
       
  • The 16 dexer with light armor (5 armor) has this for attack
    • Two hander is .6 attack and 3.1recovery, 3.7 seconds total
    • Dual wielding slow is 0.6 attack and 1.5 recovery, 2.1 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.4 attack and 1.0 recovery, 1.4 seconds total
  • The 16 dexer with medium armor (7 armor)
    • Two hander is 0.6 attack and 3.5 recovery, 4.1 seconds total
    • Dual wield slow is 0.6 attack and 1.6 recovery, 2.2 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.4 attack and 1.1 recovery, 1.5 seconds total
  • The 16 dexer with heavy armor (9 armor)
    • Two hander is 0.6 attack and 4.1 recovery, 4.7 seconds total
    • Dual wield slow is 0.6 attack and 1.8 recovery, 2.4 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.4 attack and 1.2 recovery, 1.6 seconds total
• Observations
  • Worse case is over-penetration attack and you take +30% damage which is offset by your 16 con's +30% health
  • Two handed weapon users want as little armor as possible
  • Dual wielding should go as heavy armor as possible
  • A naked two hander is equal in damage output as a light armor dexer and only less survivable when penetration =3 where you take full damage and the dexer takes -50%. At 4 pen you take full and he takes -25% but you have +30% health, at 5 pen both take full, at 6 pen you take +30% and he takes full. 
  • A naked dual wielder is equal in damage output as a medium armor dexer and only less survivable when penetration =3, 4, 5, 6, and  7, at 8 pen you are at +30% and he is at full damage which equates your con.
  • Unless you have enough armor to stay above the enemy pen, its better to go naked as long as you invested in con.

I'm thinking a naked GoldPact Corpse Eater (goldpact armor suppresses the Berserker armor) with at least 16 con is the next I'm trying or the old Bleak Walker/Berserker and lose out on two armor and gain 2 penetration ..... 

[dunehunter]

The armor and penetration discussion in another thread gave me an idea:

 

• What if instead of dexterity and wearing armor, you instead went heavy constitution and went naked? Consider one with 16 dex and one with 16 con 
•  
  • ​​The naked guy has robe for 3 armor,
    • ​Two hander attack is 0.7 attack and 3.0 recovery, 3.7 seconds total
    • ​Dual wield slow is 0.7 attack and 1.5 recovery, 2.2 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.5 attack and 1.0 recovery. 1.5 seconds total

       

  • The 16 dexer with light armor (5 armor) has this for attack
    • Two hander is .6 attack and 3.1recovery, 3.7 seconds total
    • Dual wielding slow is 0.6 attack and 1.5 recovery, 2.1 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.4 attack and 1.0 recovery, 1.4 seconds total
  • The 16 dexer with medium armor (7 armor)
    • Two hander is 0.6 attack and 3.5 recovery, 4.1 seconds total
    • Dual wield slow is 0.6 attack and 1.6 recovery, 2.2 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.4 attack and 1.1 recovery, 1.5 seconds total
  • The 16 dexer with heavy armor (9 armor)
    • Two hander is 0.6 attack and 4.1 recovery, 4.7 seconds total
    • Dual wield slow is 0.6 attack and 1.8 recovery, 2.4 seconds total
    • Dual wield fast is 0.4 attack and 1.2 recovery, 1.6 seconds total
• Observations
  • Worse case is over-penetration attack and you take +30% damage which is offset by your 16 con's +30% health
  • Two handed weapon users want as little armor as possible
  • Dual wielding should go as heavy armor as possible
  • A naked two hander is equal in damage output as a light armor dexer and only less survivable when penetration =3 where you take full damage and the dexer takes -50%. At 4 pen you take full and he takes -25% but you have +30% health, at 5 pen both take full, at 6 pen you take +30% and he takes full. 
  • A naked dual wielder is equal in damage output as a medium armor dexer and only less survivable when penetration =3, 4, 5, 6, and  7, at 8 pen you are at +30% and he is at full damage which equates your con.
  • Unless you have enough armor to stay above the enemy pen, its better to go naked as long as you invested in con.

I'm thinking a naked GoldPact Corpse Eater (goldpact armor suppresses the Berserker armor) with at least 16 con is the next I'm trying or the old Bleak Walker/Berserker and lose out on two armor and gain 2 penetration ..... 

 

Nice analysis and idea! :D

 

However, GoldPact/Shifter is really OP, with Bear form you get 16 armor rate at lvl 9 and shirtual form doesn't have armor penalty. And you attacking really fast in spiritual form.

Edited December 24, 2017 by dunehunter