I kinda forgot the specifics and can't find any information on it.

 

IIRC:

 

You had 1 damage roll based on your none special strength and then that damage was used in your attack with the following mechanics:

 

Say you rolled a 40.

 

You had 4 seperate accuracy rolls.

 

If the first hit you'd do the 40-20-10-10

 

If the 2nd hit you'd do 0-40-20-20

 

if the 3rd hit you'd do 0-0-40-40

 

if the 4th hit you'd do 0-0-0-60

 

Is that correct? I think I may have got the 3rd and 4th ones wrong, maybe it was 0-0-40-20 and 0-0-0-40?

The last one sounds right, but it's the only one there I really doubt. I know there was the possibility of it hitting 1, which might just be a fifth possibility. Other than that, I'm pretty sure those are the right numbers - I just never kept too close track of it and I'm afraid to try digging into the old edits of the Wikia site to figure it out. 

The last one sounds right, but it's the only one there I really doubt. I know there was the possibility of it hitting 1, which might just be a fifth possibility. Other than that, I'm pretty sure those are the right numbers - I just never kept too close track of it and I'm afraid to try digging into the old edits of the Wikia site to figure it out. 

I do remember that it would almost always hit above 0. Like, the minimum hit was around 7, as hitting 0 happened so rarely(Never?)

When all 4 hit, your max rolls look like this:

 

 

I can't find any documentation on what happens when the first misses.

 

All I know is that it's normalized to always equal

 

 

± rounding error

 

Edit:

 

The 4th hit is 1.5x damage. You're right.

When all 4 hit, your max rolls look like this:

 

 

I can't find any documentation on what happens when the first misses.

 

All I know is that it's normalized to always equal

 

 

± rounding error

 

Edit:

 

The 4th hit is 1.5x damage. You're right.

Ahh thank you!

Fairly certain I did have someone hit me 0-7-0-6 in Castle Wars once.

I know that each strength roll was separate, so the 7 and 6 are perfectly valid. I don't remember if the attack rolls were separate, but I would think they are. Without even a screenshot of evidence, it's hard to say anything.

 

To make things worse, I don't think Paleas ever looked into the accuracy of dragon claws, or at least he didn't publish anything about it. All we know is that they had a 1.15% increase to MAR, which is more of an estimate and wasn't rigorously tested.

Wasn't there just one strength roll? Or do you mean one strength roll with each accuracy roll (so your first attack could have hit 40 but missed, and your second attack which hits makes a different roll for strength).

I think it was that each hit had an individual strength roll. Maybe I'm wrong, it's been a few years.