Spell seeds ( Redux )

[Stunseed]

I've been trying to wrap my head around this particular formulae, offered by Latrinsorm.

The spell penalty is even less well understood, but preliminary findings indicate the following:

Foremost, that the penalty is multiplicative rather than subtractive. At each step of penalty, a modifier of 12/13 is applied to the base RF, where a step of penalty is defined by the character?s level divided by 20 and a seed of 2 as follows:

For a character at cap, up to 100/20 = 5 spells can be learned without penalty, and up to 5 + 5 + 2 = 12 spells can be learned without leaving the first level of penalty. For a level 100 warrior with a maximum of 100 spells, the penalty would be:
(0) 100 ? 5 = 95
(1) 95 ? 7 = 88
(2) 88 ? 9 = 79
(3) 79 ? 11 = 68
(4) 68 ? 13 = 55
(5) 55 ? 15 = 40
(6) 40 ? 17 = 23
(7) 23 ? 19 = 4
(8) 4 ? 21 < 0

(12/13)^8 = 52.7% modifier of the unpenalized RF.


Basically, it states you can have a range of spell ranks, with a threshhold. At 20 spells you get X redux, but at spell 21 you get X - 1 penalty redux.

I'm considering where Stunseed is at versus the use of more ranger spells to augment the dodging, etc.

[Riltus]

Basically, it states you can have a range of spell ranks, with a threshhold. At 20 spells you get X redux, but at spell 21 you get X - 1 penalty redux.

Not exactly. You divide your level by 20 and this determines the number of spells used in conjunction with the seed 2 chart.

Level 100/20 = 5

There is no penalty for the first 5 spell ranks for a level 100 character according to his theory. The spell ranks are grouped into penalty levels as follows for a level 100 character:

Level 0: ranks 1 -5
Level 1: ranks 6 - 12
Level 2: ranks 13 - 21
Level 3: ranks 22 - 32
Level 4: ranks 33 - 45
Level 5: ranks 46 - 60
Level 6: ranks 61 - 77
Level 7: ranks 78 - 96
Level 8: ranks 97 - 117
Level 9: ranks 118 - 140
Level 10: ranks 141 - 165
Level 11: ranks 166 - 190
Level 12: ranks 191 - 199

With 200 spell ranks the redux penalty is 100%.

He gave an example of the redux modifier for a level 100 character with 100 spells. This modifier is 52.7% (this is the 12/13 fraction to the eighth power).You multiply your theoretical redux without spells by this modifier to determine your redux with spell ranks 97 to 117. If you wanted to know the modifier for the level 10 penalty it would be (12/13)^10 = 44.9%

But this modifier is incorrect. If this modifier was correct the highest reasonably expected redux for a character with 1x spells would have to be no greater than 31%.

Look at it like this. A level 100 ranger with 500 redux points at cap would have approximately 57% redux. Using his modifier this same ranger with 97 spells would only have 30% redux. In order to have 35% this character would need the equivalent of 66.5% redux without spells. There is no character in the game even approaching that high a redux value yet, there are characters with 1x spell that have at least 35% redux. Obviously a problem for this theory.

I believe that the modifier is significantly higher than 52.7%. More like 62 - 66% which would make the penalty to redux much lower (34 - 38%).

If you take a level 100 ranger with 500 redux points and 1x spells this makes their redux about 37%.

I don't have any insight into the seed chart itself other than according to his data a character with 199 spell ranks would have a penalty of 61.8% but if he added one more spell rank the penalty would jump to 100%. I think this unlikely, but I don't have any supporting data, so it's just a hunch.

Mark

[graysun]

Level 7: ranks 78 - 96
Level 8: ranks 97 - 117


Sorry if this moronic question is insulting to anyone's intelligence, but...

According to the above my ranger should either stop at 96 spells at cap, or if the next level of penalty is acceptable to him then he could train as many as 117 spells? ie, 97=101=117, in terms of spell ranks at cap as they relate to the reduction in damage reduction?

[droit]

Could someone post how to calculate your total redux points?

[Stunseed]

Correct!

[Stunseed]

Primary (physical fitness): 1
Secondary (armor, TWC, ambush, MOC, dodge, CM, shield): .4
Tertiary (weapon): .3

[droit]

If you take a level 100 ranger with 500 redux points and 1x spells this makes their redux about 37%.

Well, I'm pretty close to the example Mark has given. Capped ranger, 101 spells, 483.4 redux points. I'll try to calculate my redux following the formula that was recently posted on the officials. Unless, of course, someone volunteers to take a look at my hits. I thought I had redux calculations figured out, but the most reason threads about it made me realize I was missing some crucial steps.

[Riltus]

Well, I'm pretty close to the example Mark has given. Capped ranger, 101 spells, 483.4 redux points. I'll try to calculate my redux following the formula that was recently posted on the officials. Unless, of course, someone volunteers to take a look at my hits. I thought I had redux calculations figured out, but the most reason threads about it made me realize I was missing some crucial steps.

If you want to post the hits here we can do the redux calculations. Without spells your redux should be around 57% ish. According to Latrinsorm's spell penalty theory that would put your redux at (57 * .527) = 30% which I believe is too low. I'm predicting it at about 35-37% but I'm basing my numbers from memory of posted data that was available during the original total damage reduction (current model) research.

Latrinsorm was usually very thorough with his research so, his data my be correct or at least in the ballpark. Your input will help to either re-enforce his theory or cast some doubt.

If you want to do the calculations yourself the formula is:

1 - ( actual hp/calculated hp) = redux factor

Calculated hp loss is raw damage + crit damage

Example:

You swing a falchion at Roy Rogers!
AS: +225 vs DS: +16 with AvD: +36 + d100 roll: +32 = +277
... and hit for 47 points of damage!
Roy Rogers is backed up by a strong slash to his abdomen!

Actual HP: 47
Falchion DF vs leather: .325
Raw damage: ER - 100 * .325 = 57.5 rounds up to 58
Crit damage: 25 (Rank 5 slash crit to abs)
Total calculated damage: Raw + Crit = 83

1 - (actual HP/calculated HP) = redux factor
1 - (47 / 83) = .433 or 43.3% redux

The raw damage portion is: (endroll - 100) * weapon damage factor.
The crit damage is found in the appropriate crit rank messaging tables for
slash, puncture or crush.

In order for your data to be useful it will require that the attacker (another character or a critter) be using a standard weapon type with known damage factor. That means no pound or bite type attacks. It is also important that your armor has no damage padding.

Mark

[droit]

Thanks. I'll be gone most of today, but when I get back I'll pull some logs to post. I assume hits from Grimswarm are kosher for these calculations? I'm pretty sure their weapons aren't weighted.

[droit]

Alright, here are the numbers. Capped ranger, 101 spell ranks, 483.4 redux points, wearing non-damage padded augmented chain. 20 hits from Grimswarm, endrolls >200. Average redux = 0.355.

[Riltus]

Alright, here are the numbers. Capped ranger, 101 spell ranks, 483.4 redux points, wearing non-damage padded augmented chain. 20 hits from Grimswarm, endrolls >200. Average redux = 0.355.

Thanks for the data. This is right in line with what I had remembered and really puts a crimp in Latrinsorm's theory.

Your calculations indicate a 1x spell penalty of 37.5%. Latrinsorm's theory has the 1x spell penalty as 47.3%. The 37.5% penalty would place you in his seed 2 summation, level 6, penalty interval (61 - 77 spell ranks).

In other words, for you to have a .355 redux factor, you should have no more than 77 spell ranks. With 101 spell ranks your RF, according to his theory, should be no greater than .300

FYI - for you to increase your redux factor from .355 to .375, while still maintaining 1x spells, you will need, minimally, 150 additional redux points.


Mark

[droit]

Thanks for the data. This is right in line with what I had remembered and really puts a crimp in Latrinsorm's theory.

Your calculations indicate a 1x spell penalty of 37.5%. Latrinsorm's theory has the 1x spell penalty as 47.3%. The 37.5% penalty would place you in his seed 2 summation, level 6, penalty interval (61 - 77 spell ranks).

In other words, for you to have a .355 redux factor, you should have no more than 77 spell ranks. With 101 spell ranks your RF, according to his theory, should be no greater than .300

FYI - for you to increase your redux factor from .355 to .375, while still maintaining 1x spells, you will need, minimally, 150 additional redux points.

So do you refute the penalty interval theory altogether, then? Could I train more spells without affecting my redux?

[Riltus]

So do you refute the penalty interval theory altogether, then? Could I train more spells without affecting my redux?

Your results make it less likely that his intervals are accurate, but it doesn't add any insight into whether or not the redux spell penalty is interval based. Therefore, there is no way to know whether or not you could add additional spells without a penalty.


Mark

[droit]

After I finish my CM training in 50 ranks, the plan is to start on spells. I'll let you know when that time comes so we can do some testing. Also,


FYI - for you to increase your redux factor from .355 to .375, while still maintaining 1x spells, you will need, minimally, 150 additional redux points.

So for all intents and purposes, this is impossible, right? I'm already 2x in PF, a whole new weapon style would only net me 60 points, etc. How did you come up with that number?