Talk:Luck (secondary skill)

From Heroes 3 wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion[edit]

Having high luck is unquestionably valuable in combat. For several reasons, however, Luck is only a mediocre secondary skill:

  • Maximum positive luck is +3. This may already be obtained through artifacts and adventure map locations (e.g. Fountain of Fortune), so often there is little need to also spend a secondary skill slot on it.
  • Lucky strikes are not sufficiently numerous or powerful to rival the bonus damage of Archery or Offense. Even when expert Luck increases luck from 0 to +3, the resulting average bonus damage is 2.4 times lower than what expert Offense provides to melee attacks, and 4 times lower than what expert Archery provides to ranged attacks.
  • Luck is unpredictable and therefore cannot be relied on when planning fights.

thanks[edit]

Hi Kapteeni Ruoska, Thanks for critically going over the changes I made to this page (and, for that matter, for the huge number of contributions you made so far ;-)). I'm okay with cutting down the length and number of arguments for not choosing Luck.

I answer here between the paragraphs, hope that is okay. I have tried to follow a principle to keep articles short and to the point. People come here for the information, and there are too many long and complicated texts in this world already. :P --Kapteeni Ruoska 06:11, 11 July 2014 (CEST)

minor suggestions[edit]

I just have some minor suggestions that may be useful for the current arguments: "Positive luck can often be obtained fairly easily through certain artifacts and adventure map locations (e.g. Fountain of Fortune)." I feel this is only an argument against choosing Luck as a skill because the maximum luck is +3. If learning Luck would also add +3 to your luck when you already have +3 luck (meaning you could have +6 luck), then artifacts and adventure map locations can no longer be a substitute for the skill. So perhaps it is useful to also explain here that there is a limit to positive luck and that this can already be achieved without the skill?

I see your point now. And may I say, it is supposed to be an argument against choosing luck. But you have case here. Perhaps it should be just rephrased in another way. Now I got the impression, that Luck makes things worse, which is not true. It is just not worthwhile. --Kapteeni Ruoska 06:11, 11 July 2014 (CEST)

lucky strike[edit]

"In the case of lucky strike, only base damage is doubled, which means that benefits from Archery or Offense are not taken into account. This means that the total damage is not doubled, as it might be assumed." This is a good point of course - damage is doubled only when no other damage bonuses are present. However, this is also true for Archery and Offense (their bonus damage is often less than 50% for Archery and less than 30% for Offense), yet both these skills are quite popular. So perhaps some sort of argument can be made here that lucky strikes simply do not occur frequently enough to increase the bonus damage more than Archery and Offense do? -Entelechy 19:46, 10 July 2014 (CEST)

You are correct. This is not a good argument against luck, even if it is a good point. The work continues. :) --Kapteeni Ruoska 06:11, 11 July 2014 (CEST)
Your point about brevity is well taken :-). I'll see what I can add to the arguments here without making it too long-winded. As always, feel free to let me know what you think, of course. -Entelechy 08:23, 11 July 2014 (CEST)

List at the right side.[edit]

For all the other secondary skill articles, the skill is in bold and isn't a link in the list of secondary skills at the right side of the article. This is not the case with Luck, and I couldn't work out how to fix it.

I managed to fix the bold-issue by editing the templates link reference. However, I did not understand whta you ment by the comment about right side. In my Luck page seems identical with every other skill page. –Kapteeni Ruoska (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2015 (CEST)
The right side was just saying where the list of secondary skills was. Maybe I worded that badly, but you have fixed the problem, so thank you.
It would not be the first time that the problem is my undestanding. ;) Anyway, problem solved. –Kapteeni Ruoska (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2015 (CEST)