High-Elf Warrior

[PowerDiver]

I have no idea whether it is accurate, but I always used +2 to-hit = +1 to-dam as my guideline.

[Pete Mack]

I just did some math. (The displayed hit probability is hopelessly wrong for the monster info screen.) It depends a lot on your melee skills. Let
M = melee skill = base + 3*to_h bonus.
AC = monster AC
Then hit probability is
.12 + (1-.12-.05)* (M - AC*2/3)/M.

For M = 120 AC = 150 (roughly a dracolich) you will be hitting
26% - Base
40% - With a +10 accuracy ring (or buffed with !Hero alone)
57% - Buffed with !Hero and !Berserk
62% - With all 3 bonuses

So without buffing (Note: not recommended against high AC), your damage improves by .14/.25 = 56%. With heavy buffing, it increase by 9%

For a decent midgame damage output of 50 per blow, that corresponds to 26 and 5 damage per blow, respectively. Of course, if you're using Sting or Harradekket, the numbers are much lower.

TL;DR:
For good melee compared to level appropriate AC, the value is about 2:1 to_d:to_h
For poor melee, always choose to_h.

[PowerDiver]

The other thing to keep in mind is that these comparisons are important *only* when facing a serious threat. You simply shouldn't care against lesser opponents.

[Pete Mack]

With one exception: mage. To conserve mana, you need to fight everything except for the most dangerous monsters. The optimal mage melee weapon is thus a MoD of Gondolin--ie, slay everything you can actually hit. (Of course, you may need a stat stick here.)

Originally Posted by PowerDiver

The other thing to keep in mind is that these comparisons are important *only* when facing a serious threat. You simply shouldn't care against lesser opponents.

[PowerDiver]

Originally Posted by Pete Mack

With one exception: mage. To conserve mana, you need to fight everything except for the most dangerous monsters. The optimal mage melee weapon is thus a MoD of Gondolin--ie, slay everything you can actually hit. (Of course, you may need a stat stick here.)

Do such mages ever choose between a ring of damage and a ring of slaying? I think I always use different rings by the time that sort of combat is feasible.

[Derakon]

Yeah, mage physical stats are so miserable that they'll almost certainly prefer =STR or =CON over either of those.

[Pete Mack]

Eddie--if you're a high elf mage using something like Thunderfist(CON, STR) or Deathwreaker (STR), I can see adding a ring of slaying as an option. An extra 40 melee makes a big difference against high-AC targets.
Edit: one reason to point this out is that mage hit probability is *significantly* overstated by the 4.0.5 monster knowledge. (Nick is or has fixed it in the rev branch.) If you are considering a fighter mage, focusing on this really helps (along with al three buffs, despite the nerfed Tenser's mages get.) Of course with archery you get a big bonus from additive hit chance of both bow and arrows, so long as you are shooting from relatively nearby.

[PowerDiver]

Originally Posted by Pete Mack

Eddie--if you're a high elf mage using something like Thunderfist(CON, STR) or Deathwreaker (STR), I can see adding a ring of slaying as an option. An extra 40 melee makes a big difference against high-AC targets.

If you are using it to save mana, you might want to wear a ring of int. Or con or speed, as death reduces your mana precipitously . In particular, a ring of str+5 generally gives you +5 to hit and +5 dam in addition to possibly another half blow or more. It's really hard for a ring of slaying to match that, and if they are even close sustain str is nothing to sneeze at. I've played a lot of everything, including mages, and I really cannot remember a mage giving slaying or damage serious consideration, ever, except maybe early on before I found a decent stat ring.

Mind you, my memories and experience are mostly for 3.0 with my version of blows code, but I've played some 3.1+, and I think the principles should apply pretty well to 4.0.