crawlnoob wrote:If your character is so OP that the improvement gained by having an amulet makes no realistic difference to your survivability, then arguments about optimisation are already beside the point, arent they?
All characters can be improved by wearing an amulet. Harm is only one of many amulets. Statistically, all characters are likely to be improved on average by wear IDing the first amulet they find. And if it is harm, and if you really don't want to wear it, the drain effect is overrated anyhow.
There is survivability gained through increased defence and survivability gained through increased attack. Not all playstyles see an increase in attack as worth a decrease in defense. I have played a bit with harm after wear-iding it. It was an interesting change for a conjurer, and gave some fun, but it's the kind of thing that only is advantageous in 1vs1 situations, until you get some mass damage spells.
I mean, let's suppose that you are fighting a group of orcs in a corridor, and one has a trident. So you are fighting two orcs at the same time. You inflict 30% more damage, and you suffer 20% more damage. Let's assume you need 3 turns to kill the front orc, and 3 turns to kill the trident orc (they can wear armour, after all, and you can miss, and so on). The following numbers are percentages; 100% is the equivalent of the damage caused during a turn without wearing harm).
So you have 3 turns in which you suffer 120% damage by two orcs while causing 130% damage to the front orc. 120*3*2 = 720% (instead of 600%). You inflict 130*3 = 390% damage (instead of 300%).
Then the front orc drops. Now you are facing a single orc, which inflicts just 120*3 = 360% damage before he dies (instead of 300). You still inflict your 390% damage.
In the end, the orcs caused 120+60 = 180% more damage, and you inflicted 90+90=180% more damage. It merely evened out.
And this is just 2 enemies. Add in an orc wizard blinking to your side of the corridor. Now you are being hit by 3 orcs.
So we start out with you being hit by the orcs, each orc lasts 3 turns. 120*3*3 = 1080% (instead of 900). You hit one orc three times. 130*3 = 360 % (instead of 300).
Now we are again at two orcs. Let's repeat the numbers as before.
So you have 3 turns in which you suffer 120% damage by two orcs while causing 130% damage to the front orc. 120*3*2 = 720% (instead of 600%). You inflict 130*3 = 390% damage (instead of 300%).
Then the front orc drops. Now you are facing a single orc, which inflicts just 120*3 = 360% damage before he dies (instead of 300). You still inflict your 390% damage.
In the end, you suffered 1080+720+360 = 2160% damage, instead of 1800. You inflicted 390 x 3 = 1170 damage, instead of 900. So the orcs inflicted you the equivalent of 360% more of their turns, while you only inflicted the equivalent of 270% more of your turns. The amulet of harm caused you a net loss.
I won't pretend I'm a mathematician, and I am sure that a lot of people here can make far better or more in-depth and accurate calculations, but these are those on which I choose what amulets to wear. Since you can't always choose where you will fight, I think amulet of harm has too many drawbacks. To be used well, it would need to be swappable, because its utility is highly situational. But then it would be boring. So I don't use it.