So I've been told that dexterity for warriors only effects your specialization wounding %. Does anyone know by how much? Like for instance, how many more affs will someone with 18 dex get compared to someone with 9 dex? Is there a formula? I'm a pretty newbish warrior, I'm just trying to ask the tough questions before I change my race (currently a mugwump). Any relevant info would be appreciated.

Also, might as well ask since I've already made the post, but is two-handed warrior bashing calculated differently than one-handing bashing? Or does it just go off your strength and weapon damage? My "hunting" katana is currently 160/309/280. I know warrior bashing is a conglomeration of things, but if someone could clarify them for me, I'd appreciate it.

I don't know the details, but from my understanding it doesn't actually affect your wounding % much. What it (supposedly) does is give you a higher chance that you will get an affliction. I could be mistaken, though, I've never made it far as a warrior.

As for bashing, I think they're calculated exactly the same. For 1-handers at higher levels, the most important stat is seems to be speed, and you rely on high strength/crits to do the killing.

Wow, that's a nice katana! About dexterity, that's what I heard too, it affects your accuracy, but only by a small amount. And at higher levels, blademasters and bonecrushers seem to have a slight advantage while hunting, due to more criticals. This only hear say, I'm an Axelord, so I might be mistaken, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong at all about the high levels. When you get to high levels, you're no longer worried about whether you can kill things, but how quickly you can kill them. Criticals become vital - which is why high-level characters are willing to invest so much in critical hit pendants. Two-handers actually have a pretty big advantage, because they get more criticals, and a single powerful critical is still usually powerful enough to kill several creatures. This is where monks get the short end - even though they have more attacks and get more criticals, their shofa attacks are horribly weak with the bulk of their damage being made up by their kicks, so their advantage is not nearly as huge as it otherwise would be.

Well I guess what I was driving is at was...

How much is

1 dex = to what % chance of getting a wounding affliction?

And about bashing, does anyone know the formula used to equate a warrior's "bashing total" Like strength, weapon stats, combat?, knighthood, etc. It is the generally accepted that bashing with 1 handers is easier because of more crits, but isn't it true you get bigger crits with a one hander? Speed is also a factor...I just want someone to spell out how it works. I've got max speed on my katana, right? Sooooo compare a pair of hunting broadswords...

180/x/180 x2

vs

160/x/280

The obvious winner would be the one handers by a long shot, right? Ack, is hunting with two handers equated the same way as one handers? If so, two handers are leagues behind one handers. >_< If anyone can an old thread on the subject, I'd appreciate it.

I don't know about those weapons, I used to have a 110/x/210 klangaxe, or something along those lines, and after I switched to a 324/x/173 waraxe the difference is not as big as you would expect, in fact is rather small. That's why I am waiting for my maxspeed klangaxe! This is only for two handers, the broads might be better because of the increased number of crits.

Strength has a greater effect on wounds than dexterity. Sure, dexterity increases your chance to land a wound affliction, but strength is how you build up wounds on someone.

As for hunting and critical hits, I do very well as a one-hander (dual hammers), mostly because I can still swing with one arm incapacitated and I can raze/swing very effectively. I can't speak to amounts of damage done or the relative speeds, however.

Igasho?!?!

Weapon damage, to the best of my knowledge, does not affect warrior bashing, as I've tried it with both 380 weapon damage and 150 weapon damage, and there was absolutely no difference with hits-per-mob with every mob that I tried it on.

As far as I know, and as my various tests have shown, the only things that affect warrior bashing are strength, weapon speed, balance bonuses/penalties, and knighthood level.

True, true, and true.

One handers and two handers ultimately bash at about the same rate. Sure, one handers get more criticals, but you do about half the damage as you would compared to if you were a two hander. Also consider that since you are hitting more frequently and need more hits to get a kill, you're more likely to get a critical when you don't really need one (i.e., when it wouldn't really help you kill that much faster, since the target was about to die anyways). The difference between one and two handers in this regard really isn't worth consideration. It comes down to how lucky you are.

Dexterity does not influence accuracy. If it does, I sure haven't noticed it - I think it's far more likely that strength might have some menial effect on accuracy instead.

Dexterity's effect on your likelihood to get an affliction is not terribly noticeable. It just works that if you're at the lower end of of a wounds range that is required for a given affliction, you have a slightly, minor increase in being able to land an affliction that is required for that wound range. If your STR is high enough that you can easily punch past the lower minimum of your desired wound range, the benefit of dexterity wouldn't really be as necessary.

Dexterity's benefit is likely comparable to the poison bonus you get for higher wounds. Since most races with really high DEX have low STR, I think the ability to afflict with more poisons more quickly for a high STR race is about the same as a high DEX race's ability to afflict more quickly with wound based afflictions.

Actually, this is not true. There are a few threads that do the math of this. If you were fighting a mob with infinite health, then the two would come out even. Because you are fighting creatures with finite health, the one-handers will come out on top with their criticals. I can go dig up a link to one of the older threads that demonstrated this, but the math works out in favor of the one-handers.

Realistically, though, it's not a dramatic difference.

It is a huge difference at high levels.

Only when:
1) The first weapon lands a critical hit.
2) This critical hit is of sufficient quality to kill the creature, despite doing half the damage.
3) There is another creature in the room with the same name for the other weapon to hit.

Statistically, this is actually a far less common event than many make it out to be. It only really occurs on Astral, which people can't farm for 10 hours straight any more.

Experience has taught me otherwise, but that could also just be my low STR coming through. Over what period of time was this done, however? It is true that a one-hander can kill more mobs more quickly with a lucky string of criticals, but by the same token they will be a fair bit slower if they get stuck with a lack of criticals over a period of time. And while at 90+ you will see a lot more criticals, they ultimately are not guaranteed.

Dare we factor in missing?

Nope, even when they are fighting the same creature and a single critical will not kill that creature. I think it was Shorlen who demonstrated that one-handers got about 8/3 as many criticals as two-handers - though his example was specifically using a mage, it applies the same way.



It's not so much a lucky string of criticals, but a rule using statistics the one-hander will come back on top.



Missing does happen, but at high levels you are much more likely to get a critical than to miss, so it still does not equal out.

The reason that critical rates favor one-handers has nothing to do with which hand hits first or a difference in the overall rate of criticals and everything to do with wasted damage off criticals. One handers and two handers might do exactly the same damage per second against a creature with infinite health, but we don't fight creatures with infinite health. If you're fighting a creature that would go down in eight rounds without criticals, the difference can be fairly substantial.

Oh, and I say missing about equates for having raze...

Like, we save a -lot- of time by razing/cleaving effectively, but we lose a lot on misses.

The main difference is that warriors do less damage than other bashing classes, but, for the most part are tankier and hit faster, especially in the case of 1 handers. And I agree with Xavius, that the difference between 1 and 2 handers is significant.

Ya, I should have clarified. It's not that one-handers get 8/3 as many criticals, but a one-hander has 8/3 the chance of getting a creature-killing critical on a given denizen compared to a two-hander (or mage, or anyone else).



I made three posts saying that, Xavius made one, and you agree with him instead of me? I get no love