Post/Author/DateTime	Post
swanyusd 11-08-05, 10:48 PM	I am starting a new game this sunday, and I'm going to play a mountain orc/half minotaur. Uber strength bonus for only a LA +1. Rolled an 17, so my strength will be 33. Very nice. Anyway, I'm large size, so I want to use a huge weapon. The question I have for you uber number cruncher optimizers, is which gives me more average damage. I realize I crit way more often with the greatsword, especially once I get keen/improved crit. But, its x3 for the axe, and since my strength is freakin huge, I figured the x3 could really put the hurt into some people. Plus, I am taking the feat powerful charge from the miniatures book. Gives me some more dice to damage, and since I will have speed 50(barbarians are great) I can charge alot! I'm thinking my guy will run around like a maniac charging and raging and dealing TONS of damage. With 5 dice to hit, which is better for average damage, the huge greatsword or huge greataxe. I would really, really appreciate the advice. Thanks guys.
Quenditar 11-08-05, 11:03 PM	Average damage should be identical. So it's what you like best.
swanyusd 11-08-05, 11:19 PM	really? i realize they have the same damage per dice (3d6), but is 19-20x2 the same as x3? I didnt know that. If that IS the case, I will run around with the axe, cuz it just seems WAAAAAY sweeter.
Marcus Majarra 11-08-05, 11:23 PM	Sweeter, it may be, but if your attack bonus is sufficiently high (with Str 33, this is a given), you're better off with the greatsword. And, by the way, Huge greataxes/greatswords deal 4d6 points of damage (avg. 14).
swanyusd 11-08-05, 11:26 PM	uhhh, where do you get those numbers (4d6?) I swear by the dmg 3.5 they are 3d6 (since 2d6 large jumps to 3d6 huge). Maybe i'm wrong, which I REALLY hope I am cuz that extra dice seems crazy sweet with crits x3. Anyway, let me know.
swanyusd 11-08-05, 11:28 PM	Oh, and inevitably, someone will say chargin around the battlefield provokes too many attacks of opportunity, but I have roll with it 4 times (via ua), so dr 8/- to start is ok. Plus, reach allows me to charge someone and stay away, so when they move in to attack me, oops, attack of opportunity on you. THen I run away screaming like amaniac and hit someone else for 5d6 + strx1.5 (or 6d6 if the 4d6 thing is true) at 10 feet, they get ******, try to attack, oops, attack of opp. Yay reach and half-minotaur.
BladeDrinker 11-08-05, 11:38 PM	uhhh, where do you get those numbers (4d6?) I swear by the dmg 3.5 they are 3d6 (since 2d6 large jumps to 3d6 huge). Maybe i'm wrong, which I REALLY hope I am cuz that extra dice seems crazy sweet with crits x3. Anyway, let me know. Greatsword is 2d6 for medium, not large. Uber strength bonus for only a LA +1. Just out of curiosity, how many racial hit die do you have? (I'm not familiar with mountain orcs or half-minotaurs. Which book(s)?)
swanyusd 11-08-05, 11:39 PM	look in the players guide, its considered a "large" weapon, ie 2 handed for medium. therefore, a huge weapon would be 2 handed for a large creature, and thusly, jump to 3d6 instead of 2d6. Am i wrong? Cuz if so i need a wake up call.
BladeDrinker 11-08-05, 11:41 PM	look in the players guide, its considered a "large" weapon, ie 2 handed for medium. therefore, a huge weapon would be 2 handed for a large creature, and thusly, jump to 3d6 instead of 2d6. Am i wrong? Cuz if so i need a wake up call. Is that a 3.0 player's guide by chance?
swanyusd 11-08-05, 11:56 PM	no, 3.5 lists greatswords as "large", ie 2 handed for medium. Anyway, mountain orc is in races of faerun, no la or hds. just a big bonus to strength, with appropriate negatives to other stats(cant say specifics or will violate CoC of the boards). anyway, when i say"huge" greatsword or greataxe, i mean 2 handed for a large creature. is this the correct way to think?
swanyusd 11-08-05, 11:57 PM	oh, and half minotaur is a template... look at www.crystalkeep.com for specifics. its also in a dragon magazine. but yeah, crystal keep has all the great dnd stuff ya need.
Neb Rybel 11-09-05, 12:03 AM	19-20/x2 and 20/x3 are the same. This is how you multiply crit values is take the threat window, then multiply it by the amount of EXTRA dice. so 19-20/x2 has a Crit Value of 2. 20/x3 also has a Crit Value of 2. Honestly though, I would suggest a Falchion, Great Falchion, or Great Scimitar (and take levels of Exotic Weapon Master for Uncanny Blow). Each of those has a Crit Value of 3. I even suggest these over the Scythe (20/x4) because more criticals at x2 are typically more valuable because it is very possible for your critical hit on a x4 weapon to take a foe below -10 (maybe even below -20 or -30). But a Great Scimitar (Sandstorm) is the best option if you eventually plan on taking Uncanny Blow via Exotic Weapon Master prestige class because the 1d6 damage you give up is made up for by the extra 50% strength to damage. 33 Strenght? Damn. That is +11 damage. Or +16 on two-handed weapons. With Uncanny Blow would raise that to +22 damage. So you give up 1d6 damage for 5 damage. Pretty good trade (raise the average damage by 1.5). Or you could use a Bastard Sword (Huge Bastard Swords deal 3d8 damage, same max as the 4d6 Greataxe/sword) with the same class above to get 3d8+22 (min 25, max 46, avg 35.5). Huge Greataxe/Greatsword with 33 strength. 4d6+16 (min 20, max 40, avg 30). Damage from Strength outweighs damage from weapon eventually. Especially if you have really high strength and can get more strength into damage via class features like Uncanny Blow. One last thing, I am not sure anyone has told you this, but Monkey Grip is only really a good feat when it takes the damage die up at least a d8 on a two-handed weapon. A Large Greataxe is 3d6. A Large Greataxe Power Attacked at -2 to hit is 3d6+4 (avg 14.5). A Monkey Gripped (-2 to attack) Huge Greataxe is 4d6 (avg 14). But you can always peel back the Power Attack Penalty for those times you can't take the -2 to hit.
BladeDrinker 11-09-05, 12:11 AM	no, 3.5 lists greatswords as "large", ie 2 handed for medium. Anyway, mountain orc is in races of faerun, no la or hds. just a big bonus to strength, with appropriate negatives to other stats(cant say specifics or will violate CoC of the boards). anyway, when i say"huge" greatsword or greataxe, i mean 2 handed for a large creature. is this the correct way to think? In 3.5E the different weapons are either light, one handed or two handed. Small, medium and large refer to the weapon sizes. That's not very articulate, but basically a dwarf uses a medium greataxe (which is a two handed weapon) because he is a medium creature. He can use a larger sized weapon (sized for a hill giant), but he takes a penalty for doing so. (Hence the monkey grip feat.) So a medium greatsword does 2d6 damage, a large does 3d6 and a huge does 4d6.
Tytalus 11-09-05, 12:17 AM	Sweeter, it may be, but if your attack bonus is sufficiently high (with Str 33, this is a given), you're better off with the greatsword. This is not the case at all, but in fact a common misconception. There's only a difference when fighting extremely high-AC opponents (where you only hit on a natural 20), in which case the greataxe does marginally better, but it's not really worth mentioning.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 12:17 AM	ok, so with powerful charge and the great scimitar.. and eventually exotic weapon master...i could do 3d8 + 2d6 + 22 damage on a charge. plus add rage in there... thats a ton of damage. plus, with keen and improved crit at level 8(i think) i could crit at 13-20 x 2 with my strength, thats just incredible... So... I Think i will take great scimitar instead of huge greataxe. What about a huge scimitar(3d6 two handed, 18-20/x2 without an exotic weapon prof). 1d6 med, increased in size 2 times to be 2 handed for a large critter? I dont think i get exotic weapon master with this, but still, i like the idea over huge greatsword(or large, however you want to name it).
Quenditar 11-09-05, 12:23 AM	No, the OP is correct: greatswords are large by default (and therefor a 2-handed weapon for a medium-sized creature), and a huge greatsword is only one size category larger, thus dealing 3D6 damage. That's the same for 3.0 and 3.5. Actually, no; that terminology is obsolete in 3.5. Now weapons are classified by both size (Small, Medium, Large, etc.) and weight (light, one-handed, two-handed). Medium greatswords are two-handed blades sized for Medium wielders; a Large creature could use a Medium greatsword in one hand, but would take a -2 penalty for a size mismatch. In 3.5, what he wants is a Large greatsword (two-handed for a Large creature). It still deals 3d6. Please, let's all use the same terminology (preferably 3.0, as that is what the OP is using). It's extremely confusing when half the posters are a size category off because someone didn't make terminology clear.
Tytalus 11-09-05, 12:24 AM	plus, with keen and improved crit at level 8(i think) i could crit at 13-20 x 2 with my strength, thats just incredible... Keen and improved critical only stacks in 3.0 (in which case it's 12-20/x2, by the way); in 3.5 it'd be simply 15-20/x2.
Antendren 11-09-05, 12:24 AM	There's only a difference when fighting extremely high-AC opponents (where you only hit on a natural 20), in which case the greataxe does marginally better, but it's not really worth mentioning.Well, there's also the observation that the average isn't the only important characteristic of a distribution. The greataxe has a larger variance, and variance is bad.
Tytalus 11-09-05, 12:28 AM	What about a huge scimitar(3d6 two handed, 18-20/x2 without an exotic weapon prof). 1d6 med, increased in size 2 times to be 2 handed for a large critter? I dont think i get exotic weapon master with this, but still, i like the idea over huge greatsword(or large, however you want to name it). Sandstorm has an exotic 2-handed weapon called Great Scimitar (1D12, 18-20/x2). Get a large version (3D6) and the exotic weapon master thing still applies.
Tytalus 11-09-05, 12:32 AM	Well, there's also the observation that the average isn't the only important characteristic of a distribution. The greataxe has a larger variance, and variance is bad. How it that relevant for the discussion at hand? Please refer to the original poster's request: The question I have for you uber number cruncher optimizers, is which gives me more average damage
swanyusd 11-09-05, 12:37 AM	ok, ok, ok. Now im surely confused. I have a few questions. Here they are. 1 - I use the medium/large/huge size thing for weapons. IE... a large weapon is 2 handed for a medium creature, a huge is 2 handed for large. Ok, so, with that in mind, what is better, a huge greataxe or huge greatsword. 2 - Is it really worth is to take exotic weapon proficiency "great scimitar" and then use a huge great scimitar(see above) to get 3d6 18-20/x2. What is the average damage, etc. 3 - Does 3.5 really not allow stacking with improved crit and keen? How terrible. My world feels crushed. Although I think our dm doesnt know this rule... since no one in our games know this. Terrible, just terrible... Ummm, ok, here is what I was thinking with my char. 1 bear totem barbarian/ 4 ftr/ 10 war hulk(miniatures) / 5...? I really think the war hulk is SUPER COOL in later levels. Maybe i would adjust this to be 1 ua barb/4 ftr/ 1 frenzy/10 war hulk, 2-5 frenzy. This would give crazy big str bonuses, plus i could swing TWICE and hit everything in my threat range (which is considerable cuz im large size, and i think large size can hit anything within 10feet, 5 feet including). So, best case scenario, im surrounded by 10 feet by creatures, so that i can hit 20 creatures twice with hits. Am i thinking wrong.
Quenditar 11-09-05, 12:50 AM	1) Their average damage is identical, but my feeling is that you'll get more effective damage out of a greatsword. Less overkill. 2) Yes, it does deal more damage. 4.5% more on average, I believe. 3) No, it doesn't. 4) If that's the War Hulk class I'm thinking of, are you sure you want to kill your BAB? Power Attack is tied to BAB.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 01:04 AM	1) Their average damage is identical, but my feeling is that you'll get more effective damage out of a greatsword. Less overkill. 2) Yes, it does deal more damage. 4.5% more on average, I believe. 3) No, it doesn't. 4) If that's the War Hulk class I'm thinking of, are you sure you want to kill your BAB? Power Attack is tied to BAB. Umm, so if I realize correctly, the war hulk gives eventually a +20 to str, which equates exactly to 10 bab with full power attack, except you arent losing the +10 to hit, you get it and the strength damage as well. Plus, the fact that you can hit multiple opponents with each swing, you only really need 1 or 2 swings (if facing multiple opponents). If only 1 opponent, you get 2 swings, which equate to 2 swings with full power attack without the loss to hit. So, i guess you lose 2 cuts, but you get more damage per cut.
Antendren 11-09-05, 01:04 AM	How it that relevant for the discussion at hand?It addresses what is clearly the OP's underlying question: "Which weapon is better, damage-wise?"
swanyusd 11-09-05, 01:10 AM	ok, it seems like there are 2 modes of thought. The first is, the greatsword is better because I do a bit more average damage, and am not "wasting" damage by knocking stuff to below -10 hps. Then, it seems that the greataxe is better because when i crit(if i crit) i will almost surely kill whatever it is i crit. So, I can do more "effective" damage by not killing whatever it is i crit, but I could decimate something IF i crit with the axe. With this line of thought, i pick the axe, because i want sh#t to die when I crit it... the whole point of my style. I want CRAZY HUGE DAMAGE WITH CRITS... but thought that if greatsword does more average damage (ie the whole keen vs extra +1 thought line), it would be worth it over the axe. Why even give something the chance of living through a crit? The axe DEFINITELY DOES INSANE damage on a crit, since i will surely be doing 5d6 + 1.5x per swing (charge every attack, unless only 1 opp... then i can charge, and aofopp when he comes close). blah blah blah... any more thoughts. Im tired, you may not be.
X-Codes 11-09-05, 01:20 AM	War Hulk is not a good class for power attackers, it's more for the "Hulk Smash" effect of attacking 80 squares at once with a massive strength bonus. What I think you should do is screw orc, take half-orc instead. Take 1 barb/4 fighter/10 fb/5 menacing brute from Races of Destiny. Among other things it adds your strength to intimidate rolls, has full BAB, and gives 1d6 sneak attack witch means you could even tack on Craven to your beatdown-o-rama. Also, despite your crap charisma, you will be an insanely good intimidator. You get a +4 bonus on intimidate checks against medium targets which, really, are the only ones you will have time to intimidate. Anything bigger would just get creamed. Second, no. I don't think it's worth it to take EWP for that great scimitar thing. Falchion does the same thing for 4.5 fewer average damage (1d6 less, modified by the crit range). As it's already been stated, you would be doing +16 on your damage at ECL 2, and tons more at later levels. Finally, Monkey Grip is not worth it either. Again it only adds about 4.5 average damage when even a normal-sized frenzied berserker at level 10 can easily throw down 50 damage a hit. Far better feats are those that give more options in battle like Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, and the feats that improve these feats (Leap Attack, Karmic Strike, Sidestep, etc.). To answer your first question, both the Greataxe and the Greatsword are equal in power. The Greatsword is subjected more to damage reduction because of it's low multiplier while the Greataxe has higher variance and, therefore, more potentially wasted damage on overkill. When you start consistently dealing 28 damage on Greatsword and Greataxe attacks, however, then it's time to make the change to the higher critical weapons like the Falchion or Scythe.
Tytalus 11-09-05, 01:22 AM	It addresses what is clearly the OP's underlying question: "Which weapon is better, damage-wise?" Lol. If you compare weapons "damage-wise", you compare average damage. A better comparison (and one where your argument comes into play) is weapon efficiency. More importantly (for this discussion), "variance" is difficult to quantify, making an objective comparison of weapons much more difficult that using their average damages. Just to make clear what Antendren is talking about when referring to "variance" (see above): when comparing weapons with the same* average damage, such as the large greatsword and the large greataxe, some people prefer a larger crit range (19-20/x2) over a higher multiplier (20/x3). The argument for the former is that a weapon with a larger crit range produces critical hits "more reliably", which is just a fancy way of saying that you crit more often (duh). The argument for the latter is that you have more spectacular criticals, i.e., a chance to do a ton of damage (which the original poster seems to be interested in). Both arguments are rather subjective. When comparing the efficiencies of the two weapons, it can be observed that the (19-20/x2) produces more crits with less damage, thereby reducing the chance of an "overkill", i.e., a heavy-damage critical that is "wasted" on a low-HP (e.g., wounded) opponent. The counter-argument is that a high-multiplier weapon can sometimes end a critical combat early, and is better at overcoming DR. Still, the actual difference is hard to quantify and it again boils down to a matter of preference. ---- * as said before, (19-20/x2) and (20/x3) are basically equivalent, except for combats with extemely high-AC opponents (i.e., opponents that are hit only on a natural 20), in which case the (20/x3) weapon is marginally better.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 01:32 AM	another question, does a huge scythe do 3d4 or 2d6? Also, would a huge scimitar do 3d6 or 3d4? it seems if scythe does 3d4, i may be better off with that. because x4 for crits is WAY better than 3d6x3... way. this is mostly due to the fact that my str is crazy high. hmm, much dilemma. ok, another question, which is better for average damage... 2 swings at (+6 bab, +23 str bonus) +29/25 to hit (not including magic) with 3d6x1.5str OR... 4 swings at (+16bab +13 str) for +29/24/19/14 to hit and 1.5xstr damage. This would be at level 16 by the way... the first would be the ua barb/4ftr/1frenzy/10 war hulk (2 swings) the next would be 1ua barb/4ftr/10frenzy/1 ?. This is key to my decisions. It seems the axe and sword question is totally a personal thing, yes the axe COULD be overkill on crit, and the sword would crit more. But, these damage lines (for the 4 swings vs 2 with higher damage per swing) assuming NO MAGIC or buffs means something for me. Yes, I will assuredly get magic improvements to my weapon, but i want to see what I could do better with these two concepts. number crunchers go. (oh, assume i take improved crit at 9th level, not keen weapon, also assume mw weapon, for +1 to all numbers). thanks, this line of thinking matters more to me.
Xykon 11-09-05, 01:42 AM	Edit: You can ignore this. It seems that other people had just answered this issue... Must type faster.... uhhh, where do you get those numbers (4d6?) I swear by the dmg 3.5 they are 3d6 (since 2d6 large jumps to 3d6 huge). Maybe i'm wrong, which I REALLY hope I am cuz that extra dice seems crazy sweet with crits x3. Anyway, let me know. I think there is a bit of confusion here. In 3.0, yes you are correct that a Huge great sword/great axe would be 3d6 damage. But in 3.5 its now categorized as light, one-handed, two-handed weapons. And every weapon comes with a "size" so the standard great sword is a "medium two-handed weapon". In your initial post you mentioned that you wanted to weild a "Huge great axe" thus: Great axe Med: 1d12 ==> Large: 3d6 ==> Huge: 4d6 By the way, are is your PC you a large or a huge creature? If just large, you incur a -4 penalty on to-hit when weilding a Huge great axe/great sword. As posted by someone in this thread already, you might want to consider a falchion. Falchion Med: 2d4 ==> Large: 2d6 ==> Huge: 3d6 Difference is that the falchion's critical range is 18-20 x 2. Making it keen or taking improved critical would bump it up to 15-20 (30%) x 2 -- as compared to 19-20 (10%) x 3 (great axe) or 17-20 (20%) x 2 (great sword) At STR 33 (+11) you will be dealing extra +16 damage anyway. You may want to think of either having the extra 1d6 (of a great sword) would be better than having 30% chance of critical of a keen falchion.
X-Codes 11-09-05, 01:47 AM	another question, does a huge scythe do 3d4 or 2d6? Also, would a huge scimitar do 3d6 or 3d4? it seems if scythe does 3d4, i may be better off with that. because x4 for crits is WAY better than 3d6x3... way. this is mostly due to the fact that my str is crazy high. hmm, much dilemma. ok, another question, which is better for average damage... 2 swings at (+6 bab, +23 str bonus) +29/25 to hit (not including magic) with 3d6x1.5str OR... 4 swings at (+16bab +13 str) for +29/24/19/14 to hit and 1.5xstr damage. This would be at level 16 by the way... the first would be the ua barb/4ftr/1frenzy/10 war hulk (2 swings) the next would be 1ua barb/4ftr/10frenzy/1 ?. This is key to my decisions. It seems the axe and sword question is totally a personal thing, yes the axe COULD be overkill on crit, and the sword would crit more. But, these damage lines (for the 4 swings vs 2 with higher damage per swing) assuming NO MAGIC or buffs means something for me. Yes, I will assuredly get magic improvements to my weapon, but i want to see what I could do better with these two concepts. number crunchers go. (oh, assume i take improved crit at 9th level, not keen weapon, also assume mw weapon, for +1 to all numbers). thanks, this line of thinking matters more to me. Scythes and Falchions sized for large creatures to use two-handed deal 2d6 damage, but like I said earlier if you can consistently deal about 28 damage with a greatsword as a large creature then you will do slightly more damage over 20 attacks with a falchion. (For medium size creatures, the change is best made at 26 damage.)
Neb Rybel 11-09-05, 01:58 AM	Second, no. I don't think it's worth it to take EWP for that great scimitar thing. Falchion does the same thing for 4.5 fewer average damage (1d6 less, modified by the crit range). As it's already been stated, you would be doing +16 on your damage at ECL 2, and tons more at later levels.If you are doing Warhulk, you DEFINATELY should do Great Scimitar and Exotic Weapon Master. +20 Strength is +15 damage 2 Handed. With Uncanny Blow, it is +20 damage. 33 Starting Strength, +20 Strength, +5 Str (over 20 levels) is 58 Strength. Or +48 damage with Uncanny Blow, or +36 damage without it. +12 Damage! Now HUGE is that?! With Rage it is +8 more damage (+56 damage total for Uncanny Blow vs +42 damage with a Great-axe/sword). Barbarian 4/Fighter 2/Exotic Weapon Master 1/War Hulk 10 If you still want the insane x4 critical multiplier, go Dire Pick (see Complete Warrior). Medium Dire Pick is Exotic One-Handed (1H is key for Uncanny Blow) 1d8, 20/x4. 2d6 for Large 1H, 3d6 for Huge 1H. The obvious choice is either Great Scimitar or Dire Pick (and then you use it 2H with Uncanny Blow). If you plan on using any other 2H weapon, it better be a Spiked Chain or you are making a mistake. At your strength, you don't need damage from the weapon!
swanyusd 11-09-05, 02:16 AM	xykon, my brain functions still on the 3.0 level. I apologize. I will clear this up, the last time. I want a two handed greataxe that is for a large sized creature (what I am). In 3.0 this would be called a huge greataxe... although it seems in 3.5 this is called a large two handed greataxe(weird to me still) which my brain still thinks is 3d6 for each version. And, when would i do average 20 whatever damage? Remember, im gonna try and charge every attack, so it would be 5d6 + 1.5str (ie at 2cd level like i am now, 5d6 + 16, or 30+). Soooooo, should i just go with the falchion or scythe now, since powerful charge gets me +2d6 per swing (or +7 damage). thats an average of +23 with charge bonus and str, so weapon i guess is just gravy at this point. Soooo, it seems what people are saying, is I should go with the scyth or falchion for large creatures, which is called whatever depending on what version you use. Either way, they do 3d4 + 1.5 str + 2d6 damage on a charge, which i will try to do EVERY swing. Include rage, and the damage increase by 3 on average, include frenzy, and the damage increase by 8. Yay. Sooooo, it seems falchion or scythe is what i should do. So, with scythe crit, i would do (12d4 + 8d6 + 6xstr damage (1.5 str x4 = 6) which would equal (12x2.5 = 30 + 8x3.5 = 28 + 66 (11x4) = 124 damage on average per crit, compared to falchion which would crit 3x more often, and do 6d4 + 4d6 + 3xstr bonus to damage which equals 6x2.5 = 15 + 4x3.5 = 14 + 3xstr = 33 which equals 62 unsurprisingly). Soooo, i would crit 3x more for half damage of crits, so based on a standard ac challenge game, which i think i will, i could do more average damage with falchion than the scythe, since i crit 3x more for half damage, ie i would hit for, on average, (16 times for normal (i disinclude rolling 1s) and 3 crits, for a total possible of 35.47 average versus the scythe, for 18 normal damage and 1 crit, which is an average of 35.42, which is about the same. Hmmm, this seems a preference thing again. Durnit. Oh, i did calculations for this as follows: Falchion (average damage x 16 + crit average damage x 3)/19 = 35.47 (674/19) Scythe (average damage x 18 + crit average damage)/19 = 35.42 (673/19). Well, I personally think it would be nice to crit more... but i also like the devastation caused by uber crit x4. Here are the other numbers Gsword (crit 2 times, normal 17, avg damage = ( 17.5 (5d6) + 16(1.5str) = 33.5) crits equal 67. So, total damage = 703.5/19 = 37.02 Gaxe (crit 1 time, normal 18, avg damage (17.5 (5d6) + 16(str 1.5) = 33.5), crits equal 100.5 = 703.5/19 = 37.02) It seems i average more with the higher damage dice (gsword gaxe) as opposed to the falchion and scythe. However, the scythe does tremedous more damage on a crit than the axe. But, the falchion crits more for a bit less than the sword. So, it seems really that this is a matter of taste. HUGE CRITS, which the scythe is better than the axe (3d6 x 3 versus 3d4 x4) or more crits with less average damage on non crits. Hmmm, any thoughts?
X-Codes 11-09-05, 02:29 AM	If you are doing Warhulk, you DEFINATELY should do Great Scimitar and Exotic Weapon Master. +20 Strength is +15 damage 2 Handed. With Uncanny Blow, it is +20 damage. 33 Starting Strength, +20 Strength, +5 Str (over 20 levels) is 58 Strength. Or +48 damage with Uncanny Blow, or +36 damage without it. +12 Damage! Now HUGE is that?! With Rage it is +8 more damage (+56 damage total for Uncanny Blow vs +42 damage with a Great-axe/sword). Barbarian 4/Fighter 2/Exotic Weapon Master 1/War Hulk 10 If you still want the insane x4 critical multiplier, go Dire Pick (see Complete Warrior). Medium Dire Pick is Exotic One-Handed (1H is key for Uncanny Blow) 1d8, 20/x4. 2d6 for Large 1H, 3d6 for Huge 1H. The obvious choice is either Great Scimitar or Dire Pick (and then you use it 2H with Uncanny Blow). If you plan on using any other 2H weapon, it better be a Spiked Chain or you are making a mistake. At your strength, you don't need damage from the weapon! Yes, for EWM it is worth it, but I have yet to see the OP even mention EWM once. Against the sheer damage of FB I have to ask if it's even worthwile picking up the pre-req feats on top of FB's pre-reqs.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 02:40 AM	it seems that the dire pick, if jumped in size twice (which would be 2 handed for a large creature, is 3d8x4. Yay, i found my weapon. Better than axe, and it only take 1 feat, more, and exotic weapon master is super for this, plus war hulk, uber damage per swing. Happy happy joy joy. Wow im gay. Anyway, heres the build, with this weapon Mountain orc/half min (LA +1) Stats: starting Str: 33 Dex: 13 Con: 22 Int: 7 Cha: 13 Wis: 6 2 flaws: shaky, murky eyed (roll with it x2 for feats) creation feat: roll with it ua barb: toughness (bonus) ftr 1 : xotic wpn dire pick ftr 2: wpn focus (xotic wpn), powerful charge(3hd at this point) ftr3 ftr 4: power attack barb 1 : greater powerful charge xotic wpn master 1 war hulk 1: wh2: improved crit wh3: wh4: wh5:feat? wh6: wh7: wh8:feat? wh9: wh10: 3 Prc levels? Yes, frenzied berkerker is sweet for this class, but... i shoudl note that I really like Dr 6/- at 2cd level, 1st in fact, it lets me soak much more damage per hit, and ill get hit often. However, i think i can dish out more than i take anyday, so im ok with regards to hps. So, is there another prc thats more beneficial to frenzy berkerker? if so i would like to know it.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 02:40 AM	or i could drop xotic, pick up the rage feats, and take frenzy. what do you guys think?
X-Codes 11-09-05, 02:55 AM	It seems i average more with the higher damage dice (gsword gaxe) as opposed to the falchion and scythe. However, the scythe does tremedous more damage on a crit than the axe. But, the falchion crits more for a bit less than the sword. So, it seems really that this is a matter of taste. HUGE CRITS, which the scythe is better than the axe (3d6 x 3 versus 3d4 x4) or more crits with less average damage on non crits. Hmmm, any thoughts? Starting off, yes. But that will quickly change... *calculates* This is interesting... No, it actually makes more sense... ok. 47.5 is the magic number. Or rather, 37. When you hit a damage bonus of +37 it's time to trade in the Greatsword for a Falchion (for a Large character). I'm willing to bet that this will occur somewhere around level 7 for you, and should definately happen by level 11, so plan accordingly. Barbarian 5/Fighter 4/EWM 1/FB 10 is a great build for this, taken as thus: Barb 1/Fighter 4/FB 4/EWM 1/FB 6/Barb 4 Notice, at level 10 you should have all the required feats to take your 1 level of EWM for the Great Scimitar. It will be a 2d6 weapon just like the Falchion but one-handed. With EWM that means you can add double your strength to the damage when wielding it with both hands. According to my calculations that should add about +7 damage at that level, and getting +30 on a Greatsword before then should be easy.
SoulGamit 11-09-05, 03:08 AM	Note that warhulk isn't that good of a class for more then maybe 4 levels, if that. Frenzied Berserker is better in every way, especially damage. Forget frenzy, the supreme power attack is what makes this class good. If you want to attack multiple targets in a single swing, use Warmind. It hits 2 a swing, every swing at level 5 and you get some psionic powers to boot.
X-Codes 11-09-05, 03:09 AM	Note that warhulk isn't that good of a class for more then maybe 4 levels, if that. Frenzied Berserker is better in every way, especially damage. Forget frenzy, the supreme power attack is what makes this class good. If you want to attack multiple targets in a single swing, use Warmind. It hits 2 a swing, every swing at level 5 and you get some psionic powers to boot. Not to mention full BAB and rage-like abilities. He would have to get the Wild Talent feat to qualify for all that though.
lamzak 11-09-05, 03:54 AM	What are the thoughts on half-minotaur and this LA +1? some nice bonussus on na, abillitys a free feat, and large, darvision, scent... But then again I'm not really sure if its worth a LA +2 Another question about the system how to determen if a weapon is one handed or two handed. Greataxe for medium size creature must be used two handed by a medium size creature Large Greataxe for Large size creature must be used two handed by a large size creature Greataxe for medium size creature can be used one handed by a large size creature? This also counts for exotic weapons? And so a large creature can use uncanny blow with an exotic two handed medium weapon?
X-Codes 11-09-05, 04:03 AM	What are the thoughts on half-minotaur and this LA +1? some nice bonussus on na, abillitys a free feat, and large, darvision, scent... But then again I'm not really sure if its worth a LA +2 Another question about the system how to determen if a weapon is one handed or two handed. Greataxe for medium size creature must be used two handed by a medium size creature Large Greataxe for Large size creature must be used two handed by a large size creature Greataxe for medium size creature can be used one handed by a large size creature? This also counts for exotic weapons? And so a large creature can use uncanny blow with an exotic two handed medium weapon? As for the Half-Minotaur, I just don't allow it. It commonly gives a +12 strength bonus which is overboard even for an ECL +2 character yet it doesn't have any other notable abilities to justify going any higher than +2. It's just too hard to pin down exactly. Now, for the other questions. Yes a Large creature can wield a Greataxe sized for a Medium creature one-handed, but at a -2 penalty on attack rolls because the size is off. Yes it also counts for exotic weapons. While technically it probably can, I doubt it would. The reasoning is kinda confusing, but in general the creature would be better off using a weapon sized for a creature it's size.
Xeraph 11-09-05, 04:40 AM	Heres another vote for a 18-20x2 weapon or a 20x4 weapon. I would take falchion over direpick. Sure dire pick owns if you crit, but with that strength, a double damage crit should be more than sufficient to lay down the smack. And another for Uncanny Blow. Believe me, it really do matter later om. ESPECIALY with that high strength. Think about the possibilities with magic items that boost your strength? 50 strength +20 dam, +30 normal, +40 uncanny blow. Great Scimitar + Uncanny Blow for teh win. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Another route would be Leap Attack + Battle Jump + Shocktrooper. But thats a whole different strategy. Way more deadly.
BladeDrinker 11-09-05, 05:05 AM	Heres another vote for a 18-20x2 weapon or a 20x4 weapon. I would take falchion over direpick. Sure dire pick owns if you crit, but with that strength, a double damage crit should be more than sufficient to lay down the smack. I agree. A x4 crit with this strength and a two handed weapon is probably a lot of overkill. A greater threat range would be more efficient.
MonkeyGreatSEOH 11-09-05, 07:32 AM	Doesn't uncanny blow only work on one handed weapons?
lamzak 11-09-05, 08:05 AM	yes it does. On one handed exotic weapons to be precise
neilthrun 11-09-05, 10:26 AM	If you want raw damage, check out the suglin from Frost Burn.
P33KAJ3W 11-09-05, 11:30 AM	oh, and half minotaur is a template... look at www.crystalkeep.com for specifics. its also in a dragon magazine. but yeah, crystal keep has all the great dnd stuff ya need. And it was also updated to UNbrokeness in Racers of D
swanyusd 11-09-05, 01:36 PM	heres another question, is the fullblade from arms and armament considered 1 handed for large creatures, since its 2 handed for medium? how would that compare? i doesnt have the crit range as a great scim, but its still pretty sweet in its own right. or should i just go great scim? hmmm...
swanyusd 11-09-05, 01:49 PM	last question, i promise... whats a damage category 6 gore attack? apparently its something half min gets, but i really dont know what it is. any help would be sweet.
Judging Eagle 11-09-05, 03:21 PM	Start at... 1 damage, then 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 1d12 so, 1d12 damage? Also, I should add something on the high crit rate versus harder-hitting crits. A 15-20 crit range is a 25% chance of getting a crit; with your insane str you'll almost always confirm (if you want to confirm even more take power critical (weapon) for +4 to confirm a crit). The 20 or 19-20 is either a 10% or 5% chance of critting. I know that as a player you'll crit more often than a monster since you'll attack more often overall. However, do you want to crit almost twice as often? or twice as hard? It should be noted that if you use a 15-20 crit range weapon you'll hit any target 25% of the time (a non-confirmed crit is still a normal hit) and you'll crit any crittable target (regardless of AC) with a 6% chance (25% chance to crit, then 25% of that; ie. 0.25/4 = 0.0625 or 6.25% chance of critting anything. The roughly 6% chance to crit any target regardless of their AC; so, even if they have 10,000 AC, you still have a 25% chance to hit them and a further 6% chance of auto-critting anything that can be critted. The dire pick is at a measly 10 or 5% to hit and then only a (0.1/10) 1% or .5% chance of critting anything; although it would hit twice as hard, it would only hit 1/6 as often; so really a x4 crit weapon would really do less damage in the long run. If you want to get into a new area of ridiculesness, you could dual wield two large scimitars, or two normal flachions; but TWF isn't part of this build.
Quenditar 11-09-05, 03:25 PM	No, you do not automatically hit on a threat. It's not a common situation, because normally a 19 or 18 hits anyhow, but you only automatically hit on a natural 20. That's why weapons with high crit modifiers do better against opponents with extremely high AC.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 03:49 PM	just thought of something... what about doing a TWF with the great scimitar(or just a large scimitar) and taking dervish 10? That equals, with full attack, 8 attacks on 1 opponent, or 2 for each opponent during a dervish dance. Pretty incredible stuff. Add haste in there, wow. Since I already want to make my guy a charger type, this could fit in very well. What are your thoughts guys?
swanyusd 11-09-05, 04:02 PM	wow, i have a question. With the dervish dance, can you attack the same opponent over and over as long as you move at least 5 feet per swing? Cuz, um, yeah, that would be absolutely ridiculous with my strength score. INCREDIBLE in fact. whats the verdict. remember, i also have a reach of 10 feet, so properly done, i will provoke no AoOp being doing this, and I have taken the quick trait, so i move at 50, if I take a level of normal barb instead of bear totem barb, i move at 60. Umm, wow. Thats 12 swings at an opponent or multiple opponents. Thats how you end encounters right now. Whats the verdict on the dervish thing?
X-Codes 11-09-05, 05:07 PM	wow, i have a question. With the dervish dance, can you attack the same opponent over and over as long as you move at least 5 feet per swing? Cuz, um, yeah, that would be absolutely ridiculous with my strength score. INCREDIBLE in fact. whats the verdict. remember, i also have a reach of 10 feet, so properly done, i will provoke no AoOp being doing this, and I have taken the quick trait, so i move at 50, if I take a level of normal barb instead of bear totem barb, i move at 60. Umm, wow. Thats 12 swings at an opponent or multiple opponents. Thats how you end encounters right now. Whats the verdict on the dervish thing? No, thats not how Dervish Dance works. Dervish Dance does *not* give you one attack for each 5' moved, you get your normal attack series and have to take a 5' step inbetween each attack. Dervishes are not Chargers, they focus on the full attack action as opposed to the Charge action. If you want to focus on the Charge then War Mind is a much better class because of Psionic Lion's Charge and Sweeping Strike. War Hulk is not a good class, even for using Uncanny Blow with the Great Scimitar. Each level of War Hulk in that case adds +1 to attacks and +2 to damage, meanwhile you could take a level of Frenzied Berserker for a +1 to attacks or eventually sack that for a +2, +3, or +4 to damage. Your strength also effectively still goes up by 10 from the Frenzy ability, giving an extra +5 to attacks and +10 to damage. War Hulk is best used for throwers in combination with the Brutal Throw feat since they can attack multiple squares at once with high-damage, good-range throwing weapons. There is no Half-Minotaur in races of destiny, thats the Half-Ogre. Also, the damage does not go as Eagle says. The progression is like this: Starting for both types of weapons, damage is like this down to their smallest possible effective size. 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 ~~~ Weapons that have d6's or similar damages are then made larger in this progression: ~~~ 1d8 (or 2d4) 2d6 (or 1d12) 3d6 4d6 6d6 8d6 12d6 Or, in the case of a weapon that uses d10's or multiple d8's: ~~~ 1d8 1d10 2d8 3d8 4d8 6d8 8d8 12d8 This progression is pretty much limited to Glaives, Bastard Swords (and similar weapons), and Elven Court Swords. No natural weapons use the d8 line.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 05:58 PM	where does it say anything about lion's charge in the war mind class? or is that from something else? let me know.
swanyusd 11-09-05, 05:59 PM	nevermind, im a silly boy.
X-Codes 11-10-05, 12:34 AM	Yeah, thats right. War Mind is bad ass. I'm surprised it isn't used more often.
Xykon 11-10-05, 02:35 AM	xykon, my brain functions still on the 3.0 level. I apologize. I will clear this up, the last time. I want a two handed greataxe that is for a large sized creature (what I am). In 3.0 this would be called a huge greataxe... although it seems in 3.5 this is called a large two handed greataxe(weird to me still) which my brain still thinks is 3d6 for each version. And, when would i do average 20 whatever damage? Remember, im gonna try and charge every attack, so it would be 5d6 + 1.5str (ie at 2cd level like i am now, 5d6 + 16, or 30+). Soooooo, should i just go with the falchion or scythe now, since powerful charge gets me +2d6 per swing (or +7 damage). thats an average of +23 with charge bonus and str, so weapon i guess is just gravy at this point. Soooo, it seems what people are saying, is I should go with the scyth or falchion for large creatures, which is called whatever depending on what version you use. Either way, they do 3d4 + 1.5 str + 2d6 damage on a charge, which i will try to do EVERY swing. Include rage, and the damage increase by 3 on average, include frenzy, and the damage increase by 8. Yay. Sooooo, it seems falchion or scythe is what i should do. So, with scythe crit, i would do (12d4 + 8d6 + 6xstr damage (1.5 str x4 = 6) which would equal (12x2.5 = 30 + 8x3.5 = 28 + 66 (11x4) = 124 damage on average per crit, compared to falchion which would crit 3x more often, and do 6d4 + 4d6 + 3xstr bonus to damage which equals 6x2.5 = 15 + 4x3.5 = 14 + 3xstr = 33 which equals 62 unsurprisingly). Soooo, i would crit 3x more for half damage of crits, so based on a standard ac challenge game, which i think i will, i could do more average damage with falchion than the scythe, since i crit 3x more for half damage, ie i would hit for, on average, (16 times for normal (i disinclude rolling 1s) and 3 crits, for a total possible of 35.47 average versus the scythe, for 18 normal damage and 1 crit, which is an average of 35.42, which is about the same. Hmmm, this seems a preference thing again. Durnit. Oh, i did calculations for this as follows: Falchion (average damage x 16 + crit average damage x 3)/19 = 35.47 (674/19) Scythe (average damage x 18 + crit average damage)/19 = 35.42 (673/19). Well, I personally think it would be nice to crit more... but i also like the devastation caused by uber crit x4. Here are the other numbers Gsword (crit 2 times, normal 17, avg damage = ( 17.5 (5d6) + 16(1.5str) = 33.5) crits equal 67. So, total damage = 703.5/19 = 37.02 Gaxe (crit 1 time, normal 18, avg damage (17.5 (5d6) + 16(str 1.5) = 33.5), crits equal 100.5 = 703.5/19 = 37.02) It seems i average more with the higher damage dice (gsword gaxe) as opposed to the falchion and scythe. However, the scythe does tremedous more damage on a crit than the axe. But, the falchion crits more for a bit less than the sword. So, it seems really that this is a matter of taste. HUGE CRITS, which the scythe is better than the axe (3d6 x 3 versus 3d4 x4) or more crits with less average damage on non crits. Hmmm, any thoughts? Thats okay, been the same position as you were when migrated to 3.5 from 3.0. I prefer the more often critical rather than end the battle with one lucky 20 (and succeeded confirm crit). Here's how i look at it: Lets say categorize encounters as follows: 1. Low AC (i.e. needs to roll 6 to hit) then for these encounters greatswords are excellent -- if you run the numbers they do more damage than the falchion (although not by much). 2. Average AC (i.e. needs to roll 12 to hit) then the averages now changes -- with a falchion you critical threat more often than the great sword, considering you only hit with rolls 12-20, your threat chance with a falchion is 6 out of 9 numbers (66.67%) compared to greatsword 4 out of 9 (44.44%) or great axe 2 out of 9 (22.22%). 3. High AC (i.e. needs roll 15 to hit). A falchion would critical threat everytime. A greatsword would critical 4 out of 6 and a greataxe 2 out of 6. 4. Super AC (i.e. needs 20 to hit). Now this is where greataxe would stand out -- thats assuming you have the luck to roll a 2nd, consecutive 20 :-D Note these are assuming you either have taken the improved critical feat or have a keen version of the weapon. for #1: Low challenge - if weilding a falchion delays me 1 turn from killing the monster, fine... for one he's dead next turn, another would be these encounters are very rare. for #2: Med challenge - about 30-60% of the encounters (depending on DM) are of this type. I haven't done the maths on this but its from what we are seeing here is that being able to critical damage more often appears to has a higher damage output. for #3: High challenge - about 10-30% of the encounters are of this type -- typical "boss" encounters: High AC, High Hitpoints. Every roll counts and this is where falchion shines. for #4: Impossible challenge - Very rare (WTF?!? ROLLED A 19 AND STILL MISSES?!?). You should be running at this point :-D If you run the numbers along with its probabilities, being able to double the damage certainly rules -- Especially with your ridiculous str of 33 = x1:16pts / x2:32pts / x3:48. Anyway, just my thoughts/impression. I might be wrong with the calculations - coz i don't know how to include the probability factor of the confirm critical roll, but if so just let me know.
Xykon 11-10-05, 03:41 AM	It seems i average more with the higher damage dice (gsword gaxe) as opposed to the falchion and scythe. However, the scythe does tremedous more damage on a crit than the axe. But, the falchion crits more for a bit less than the sword. So, it seems really that this is a matter of taste. HUGE CRITS, which the scythe is better than the axe (3d6 x 3 versus 3d4 x4) or more crits with less average damage on non crits. Hmmm, any thoughts? In the Scythe vs. Greataxe - I tend to go scythe, not because of its critical potential, but rather the ability to trip opponents :D by the way, large scythes have 2d6 damage and not 3d4... In terms of damage i would rather go for greataxe (+3-18 damage) than scythe (2-12 damage). greataxe averages at +10/+11 damage while scythe at +7 damage. Besides, not a lot of creatures will survive greataxe critical (16+3~18)*3 = 54 to 102 damage. Would bumping up the critical damage to (16+2~12) * 4 = 72 to 112 be better at the expense of lower "normal" damage range? It really depends... In the games that we play (i play a FGT 7/BBN 2 goliath w/ large chain-spike), 19's and 20's are very rare. If you're good at your dice, might be worth a try...
Blas de Lezo 11-10-05, 07:52 AM	Go for a Great Scythe with Improved Critical/or/Keen enhacement, AND icy/or/shocking/or/fire burst enhacement. When you hit a crit, it will be just SPECTACULAR.
Gorath 11-10-05, 11:03 AM	I can't see why 19-20/x2 and x3 should have the same average damage... Your average damage output depends from the propability to hit you opponent. Lets asume damage potential is the same. A) You can only hit with a natural 20 (5% chance): 19-20/x2: 2d * 5% *5% = 0.005 * d x3: 3d * 5% * 5% = 0.0075 *d B) You hit only with a 19 or 20 (10% chance): 19-20/x2: d * 0% + 2d * 10% * 10% = 0.02 * d x3: d * 5% + 3d * 5% * 10% = 0.065 * d C) You hit with 100%>p%>10%: 19-20/x2: d * (p-0.1) + 2d * 0.1 * p = (1.2p-0.1) * d x3: d * (p-0.05) + 3d * 0.05 * p = (1.15p-0.05) * d 1.2p-0.1 < 1.15p-0.05 <==> 0.05p < 0.05 <==> p < 1 = 100% D) You hit with p=95%: 19-20/x2: d * 85% + 2d * 10% * 95% = 1.04 * d x3: d * 90% + 3d * 5% * 95% = 1.0425 * d So i would say that if your weapon has the same damage d its better to have x3 then 19-20/x2. Did anyone make test runs to confirm that average damage is equal? Gorath
Tytalus 11-10-05, 12:20 PM	I can't see why 19-20/x2 and x3 should have the same average damage... Your average damage output depends from the propability to hit you opponent. Lets asume damage potential is the same. Ugh, multiple mistakes in the calculations. You fail to include the damage of critical threats that are not confirmed. For example: B) You hit only with a 19 or 20 (10% chance): 19-20/x2: d * 0% + 2d * 10% * 10% = 0.02 * d x3: d * 5% + 3d * 5% * 10% = 0.065 * d Correct would be: 19-20/x2: d * 10% * 90% (threat not confirmed) + 2d * 10% * 10% (critical hit) = 0.11 * d x3: d * 5% (no threat, no crit) + d * 5% * 90% (threat not confirmed) + 3d * 5% * 10% (critical hit) = 0.11 * d To repeat it again, the weapons are equivalent, except for the case of high-AC opponents that can only be hit on a natural 20 (in which case the axe is marginally better). Since the OP will have a crazy-high to-hit bonus due to his high strength, this should be a very rare occasion indeed.
Tytalus 11-10-05, 12:41 PM	Just as an aside: the calculation of average damage for weapons becomes a lot easier if you consider the extra damage of a critical separately from the base damage of the weapon. A greatsword (19-20/x2) does an extra base damage on a crit. A greataxe (20/x3) does an extra 2x base damage on a crit. So the axe deals twice as much extra damage, but the greatsword is twice as likely to do so. Ergo they are equivalent. Exercise for the reader: are (18-20/x2) and (20/x4) equivalent? Hint: yes. Bonus question: are elemental burst weapons more effective on high-multiplier weapons? Hint: no. Note that this assumes that both weapons have the same base damage (given for large versions of the weapons), and that the combat conditions are comparable (same roll required to hit opponent). The beauty of looking at it this way is that considerations of threats vs. actual criticals, which complicate comparisons, can be avoided entirely. It also does not matter if weapons both have Keen/Impr. Crit affecting their crit range. Note also that whenever your range of rolls that count as successful hits is smaller than your threat range, high-multipler weapons deliver better average damage than their high-range counterparts (as pointed out mutliple times above). If you are not looking at average damage, but combat effectiveness, too many factors (DR, hp of opponent, an opponent's DS, etc) and subjective preferences (crit often vs. spectacular crits) come into play to objectively rank damage-equivalent weapons. Just choose what suits your style. When it comes to crit-dependent weapon enchantments, some are better on high-range weapons. Specifically, all burst enchantments (except elemental bursts) do not scale with the crit multiplier, so they are more effective on high-range weapons. Examples include Doom Burst, Prismatic Burst, etc. [MiniHB].
swanyusd 11-10-05, 01:36 PM	Just a note to add on to this debate, yes I agree with the whole "probability to hit" part, but remember, I have a +11 strength, it will be +12 in 2 levels. So I can hit MUCH MORE OFTEN that the standard human fighters with +4 to str, or even a half orc with +5. In fact, I hit about 30-40% of the time more. So I think I must agree with the lower end of the damage calculations, that is to say, the "weaker" opponents... because frankly, our DM would have to be a total prick to put us up against an AC creature of something I can barely hit.
eRaz0r 11-10-05, 04:47 PM	Tytalus : I agree that "average" damage calculation is unaffected for the reasons you describe, however, "effective damage" is. For example, while the 20/x4 weapon averages the same damage over multiple trials (swings), the 18-20/x2 weapon is going to have a higher consistent damage output for any given swing (provided roll to hit and confirm is under 18, of course. If it's over 18, then the x4 begins to overtake the x2, until you reach a required to hit of 20, whereupon the x4 is clearly twice as good). That is to say on any one given trial, the 18-20 weapon is, by definition, going to have a higher chance of scoring a critical than the 20 weapon. IMHO, that makes it a better weapon because, even though the damage output isn't as high,the variance is smaller. Taken to an extreme, this is like asking whether you'd like a weapon that does 50 damage every strike or one that does 1d100 damage. They both average nearly the same, but the former weapon is more reliable, and more useful because of it. In other words, average (life-time) weapon damage isn't the best indicator of effectiveness. IMHO, of the standard PHB weapons, the Greatsword wins for the following reasons : 1/ decent threat range. 2/ high (lifetime) average damage. 3/ High (single swing) average damage. Instead of a single high-variance 1dX roll, we have the 2d6, which tends towards a 7 average on each swing.
Tytalus 11-10-05, 07:45 PM	Tytalus : I agree that "average" damage calculation is unaffected for the reasons you describe, however, "effective damage" is. As has been said before, weapon efficiency is a matter involving many variables. Your argument makes sense, but is still a subjective evaluation. What's really important is which weapon kills faster, and for that both are (on average) equal. Just consider your 50 damage weapon and my 1D100 weapon when trying to kill an opponent with 225 hit points. Sometimes your weapon will be faster, sometimes mine. If I can kill my opponent in, say, 3 hits, then I'd say my weapon is more "useful". You are able to say that you always need exactly 5 hits (while I may take 3, 4, 5, ..., 7, or even more), though. If that is important to you, then you chose the right weapon. To re-iterate some arguments for high-range and high-multiplier weapons: High crit range: - more "reliable" (not it's a subjective weapon quality criterion) - less "overkill" (refers only to crits that kill) - much better for non-elemental burst enchantments - much better for non-variable multliplier increases (3.0 Deepwood Sniper, etc. Note that the Maiming weapon enchantment [MiniHB] also falls into this category as it increases the (average) multiplier by a set amount) High multiplier: - more spectacular hits - better chance to end a critical combat early (but: chance it will take longer as well) - crits can overcome high DRs more easily - much better for Non-variable threat range increases (3.0 Weapon Master, Psionic Weapon Master) Personally, I like the flavour of high-multiplier weapons, while a high-range weapon with a few non-elemental burst enchantments (Prismatic Burst is just crazy on a keen rapier/scimitar/etc, for example) is probably the better weapon overall. Ah, so many choices!
X-Codes 11-10-05, 07:50 PM	Tytalus : I agree that "average" damage calculation is unaffected for the reasons you describe, however, "effective damage" is. For example, while the 20/x4 weapon averages the same damage over multiple trials (swings), the 18-20/x2 weapon is going to have a higher consistent damage output for any given swing (provided roll to hit and confirm is under 18, of course. If it's over 18, then the x4 begins to overtake the x2, until you reach a required to hit of 20, whereupon the x4 is clearly twice as good). That is to say on any one given trial, the 18-20 weapon is, by definition, going to have a higher chance of scoring a critical than the 20 weapon. IMHO, that makes it a better weapon because, even though the damage output isn't as high,the variance is smaller. Taken to an extreme, this is like asking whether you'd like a weapon that does 50 damage every strike or one that does 1d100 damage. They both average nearly the same, but the former weapon is more reliable, and more useful because of it. In other words, average (life-time) weapon damage isn't the best indicator of effectiveness. IMHO, of the standard PHB weapons, the Greatsword wins for the following reasons : 1/ decent threat range. 2/ high (lifetime) average damage. 3/ High (single swing) average damage. Instead of a single high-variance 1dX roll, we have the 2d6, which tends towards a 7 average on each swing. The only difference between Greatsword and Greataxe sized for a large character is this "variance" thing everyone keeps talking about. Let me say right now that this "variance" thing is pretty much crap. Weapons with higher criticals (or higher "variance") deal more lifetime damage against creatures with extreme DR/Regen or AC. At the same time, however, an x3 critical has the potential to deal much more damage than needed to to a near-death opponent and waste a great deal of damage. Other than those two factors, they are mathematically IDENTICAL. Neither one is better in the slightest bit. The only time one is better than the other is when they are sized for medium creatures, at which point the Greataxe deals .5 less damage per hit than the greatsword.
eRaz0r 11-10-05, 08:02 PM	Perhaps you're right - it is subjective. When I think about it - after you factor in the fact that your bonuses to damage are usually more important than the base average damage of the weapon, I'd definitely consider a 1d12+10 with a small chance of x3 vs a 2d6+10 with a slightly larger chance of x2. At that point the modifiers take over and 4d6+20 vs 3d12 + 30 half as often is quite on par.
Antendren 11-10-05, 09:38 PM	You are able to say that you always need exactly 5 hits (while I may take 3, 4, 5, ..., 7, or even more), though. If that is important to you, then you chose the right weapon. It should be important to him. See below. Let me say right now that this "variance" thing is pretty much crap. Blatantly false. Variance is an important game theoretic consideration, because it favors the underdog. Consider two players both generating numbers, where the objective is to have the higher number. Suppose player A's average number generated is 51, and B's is 50. Who is more likely to win one round? Player A. How much more likely? That we can't say without more information. If A's generator always spits out 51, while B's always spits out 50, then A is gauranteed to win. This is a case of zero variance. On the other hand, if A's is equally likely to spit out every number between 1 and 101, while B's is equally likely to spit out every number between 0 and 100, then A is only ever so slightly more likely to win. This is an example of very high variance. To give a more realworld example, upsets are more likely to occur in football games played in inclement weather. The rain increases the frequency of fumbles and other such flukes, thus increasing the variance. Why is this important in D&D? Because the PCs are not the underdogs. They're expected to only expend 20% of their resources on an encounter, meaning that they have the upper hand against their foes. So they want to minimize the variance.
X-Codes 11-10-05, 10:25 PM	Variance is an important game theoretic consideration, because it favors the underdog. When you use the word "theoretic" it reduces the validity of your argument to almost nil right there. Out of 100 football games played in fair weather and 100 played in rain, the underdog will still loose the same percentage of games. "Variance" can favor the party just as much as it can favor the NPCs. In fact, if you go into a Casino and roll d8's instead of d6's at the craps table your chance of winning doesn't change the slightest bit if the odds are adusted properly to reflect the new chances of getting each combination of dice. More "Variance" and no change to the chances of success.
Vaelan 11-10-05, 11:48 PM	I can't see why 19-20/x2 and x3 should have the same average damage... Your average damage output depends from the propability to hit you opponent. Lets asume damage potential is the same. A) You can only hit with a natural 20 (5% chance): 19-20/x2: 2d * 5% *5% = 0.005 * d x3: 3d * 5% * 5% = 0.0075 *d B) You hit only with a 19 or 20 (10% chance): 19-20/x2: d * 0% + 2d * 10% * 10% = 0.02 * d x3: d * 5% + 3d * 5% * 10% = 0.065 * d C) You hit with 100%>p%>10%: 19-20/x2: d * (p-0.1) + 2d * 0.1 * p = (1.2p-0.1) * d x3: d * (p-0.05) + 3d * 0.05 * p = (1.15p-0.05) * d 1.2p-0.1 < 1.15p-0.05 <==> 0.05p < 0.05 <==> p < 1 = 100% D) You hit with p=95%: 19-20/x2: d * 85% + 2d * 10% * 95% = 1.04 * d x3: d * 90% + 3d * 5% * 95% = 1.0425 * d So i would say that if your weapon has the same damage d its better to have x3 then 19-20/x2. Did anyone make test runs to confirm that average damage is equal? Gorath They are equivalent when you hit on all of the numbers that are a part of your threat range.
Gorath 11-11-05, 01:02 AM	Sorry, i forgot the non confermed crits - but the only 20 hits example shows there is a very small difference. Gorath
Antendren 11-11-05, 01:03 AM	Out of 100 football games played in fair weather and 100 played in rain, the underdog will still loose the same percentage of games. Wrong. That's the entire point of my argument.
Gwythion 11-11-05, 01:13 AM	G Warmace. 6d6, used 2h.
X-Codes 11-11-05, 01:25 AM	Wrong. That's the entire point of my argument. Inclement weather is a double-edged sword just like all other "variance". Teams that can't pass the ball well can't pass the ball at all in bad weather, the ball will be slick making passes less accurate and catches more shaky. Teams that can't run well can't run at all in bad weather, the field will be slick causing runners to slip and slide. Teams that turn over the ball will do it more in bad weather, the ball will slip out of arms more and recievers will fall down, allowing defenders to complete routes and intercept. Of course, these are all generalizations. In reality, different teams are affected differently by bad weather. New England, for example, couldn't care less if they were playing in snow. They live in snow. They're used to the effects of cold weather and know how to adapt. Meanwhile, southern teams have far less exposure to cold weather and have their abilities inhibited more from the cold weather. When you throw all that in, comparing D&D to Football was a pretty crappy idea to begin with. There's simply too many unkowns when it comes to football such as conditioning, background, practice conditions, and the ever-mysterious home field advantage. Saying something happens because of some theoretical idea called "variance" when there are this many unknowns is a very bad way to do things, especially math and probability. In D&D, every last bonus and penalty to an attack, including cover, visibility, buffs, debuffs, and natural hazards, can be noted by an expirenced player in a few seconds. Everything else is left up to the random result of the d20 roll. The only way we can predict how effective a character is is by examining all the possible results, averaging them out, and comparing that data to what we have already. The data here shows, simply and unrefutably, that a large (3.0 huge) greatsword and a large (3.0 huge) greataxe deal the *exact same* amount of damage and are mathematically equal to each other. It also shows that a large (3.0 huge) falchion and a large (3.0 huge) scythe also deal the *exact same* amount of damage and are mathematically equal to each other.
Antendren 11-11-05, 03:21 AM	Inclement weather is a double-edged sword just like all other "variance". There's no reason to use scare quotes. It's a well-defined mathematical concept. When you throw all that in, comparing D&D to Football was a pretty crappy idea to begin with. It was an attempt to explain a concept that already stands on its own. If it doesn't help you, ignore it. The data here shows, simply and unrefutably, that a large (3.0 huge) greatsword and a large (3.0 huge) greataxe deal the *exact same* amount of damage Average damage, yes. and are mathematically equal to each other I'm never really sure what people mean when they say this. If it's just synonymous with "deal the same average damage", then yes, they are. If you mean they have the same effect on the game, then no, not at all. Look, here's another example, this one pulled straight from D&D. In the DMG, or UA, or somewhere, there's a suggested variant of people rolling their defense. Instead of having a base AC of 10, to which modifiers are added, you roll a d20 and add all appropriate modifiers. So now let's say your character has an AC (in the normal system) of 28. That is, he has a total of +18 to his AC from armor, shield, natural armor, etc. So in the variant, he would roll 1d20 +18 for his AC against any given attack. Thus he has an average AC of 28.5 (effectively 29, since there's no way for the attacker to generate a fractional number). Let's assume your opponent has an attack bonus of +10 after all appropriate modifiers. Under the normal system, your opponent needs an 18+ to hit, so he has a 15% chance of hitting. Under the variant, where you have a better average AC, it turns out your opponent actually has a 19.5%* chance of hitting (and that's ignoring auto-success 20s, which would only increase his odds). So the average isn't the end-all be-all of a distribution. *Computed as sum_i=9^20 (i-8) / 400 = .195
Tytalus 11-11-05, 03:42 AM	Wrong. That's the entire point of my argument. Look, Antendren, so far you have not provided any concrete evidence for your view. Some pseudo-facts and a few more or less reasonable arguments, but nothing that proves that it is in fact much more than personal preference. What matters really is: can you kill more opponents in the same time? Can you kill opponents faster? Sure variance affects the game, but in a good or bad way? Reduced variance gets you crap if you are fighting a high-DR opponent, and if you can end a deadly fight early due to a lucky critical hit "high variance" weapons are looking pretty good. Of course, there are other cases where they look worse (see above). Definately too many variables for a blanket statement like "low variance is better" - despite rainy football matches.
Tytalus 11-11-05, 03:45 AM	Look, here's another example, this one pulled straight from D&D. [...] So the average isn't the end-all be-all of a distribution. Note that your example does not illustrate the effect of variance, but the effect of a higher AC. If you computed your defense roll so that it would, on average, match the original AC, then you'd get hit the same amount of times - despite variance.
X-Codes 11-11-05, 04:28 AM	There's no reason to use scare quotes. It's a well-defined mathematical concept. They aren't scare quotes, see below. It was an attempt to explain a concept that already stands on its own. If it doesn't help you, ignore it. I know the concept of variance, and I ignore it. Why? Because it deals entirely with probability and there is no practical means to determine whether or not it will even have an impact on any given situation. In most cases, it doesn't even have an impact on a given situation, since most situations it can be determined definately whether or not something will hapen with 100% certainty. I'm never really sure what people mean when they say this. If it's just synonymous with "deal the same average damage", then yes, they are. If you mean they have the same effect on the game, then no, not at all. Look, here's another example, this one pulled straight from D&D. In the DMG, or UA, or somewhere, there's a suggested variant of people rolling their defense. Instead of having a base AC of 10, to which modifiers are added, you roll a d20 and add all appropriate modifiers. So now let's say your character has an AC (in the normal system) of 28. That is, he has a total of +18 to his AC from armor, shield, natural armor, etc. So in the variant, he would roll 1d20 +18 for his AC against any given attack. Thus he has an average AC of 28.5 (effectively 29, since there's no way for the attacker to generate a fractional number). Let's assume your opponent has an attack bonus of +10 after all appropriate modifiers. Under the normal system, your opponent needs an 18+ to hit, so he has a 15% chance of hitting. Under the variant, where you have a better average AC, it turns out your opponent actually has a 19.5%* chance of hitting (and that's ignoring auto-success 20s, which would only increase his odds). So the average isn't the end-all be-all of a distribution. *Computed as sum_i=9^20 (i-8) / 400 = .195 I'm not impressed, but whatever. The fact of the matter is that you should say now exactly how much and what kind of difference using a scythe instead of a falchion causes. For each word you type I will ignore you for one word more because you have just proven to me how completely full of it you are. The best you can come up with is a 4.5% change in the chance to hit, which is more than doubled by a tactical decision like flanking. Taking the Weapon Focus feat causes more of a difference than your variance. You sounded smart until you made that last post proving yourself how very insignificant variance is on the d20 system. Anyway, it's late now. I'm going to sleep.
Antendren 11-11-05, 09:04 AM	Note that your example does not illustrate the effect of variance, but the effect of a higher AC. If you computed your defense roll so that it would, on average, match the original AC, then you'd get hit the same amount of times - despite variance.Note that the character with the higher AC is the one getting hit more. It is completely because of the greater variance. if you can end a deadly fight early due to a lucky critical hit "high variance" weapons are looking pretty good. Of course, there are other cases where they look worse (see above).Do you accept that in general the PCs will have the advantage over their foes (given the 20% party resources thing)? Then they're going to be better served by consistency than by the possibility of a lucky strike. This is because consistency benefits the stronger player - I've attempted to illustrate this, but crack open a text on game theory if you still disagree. The degree to which they are better served is difficult to compute, because encounters in D&D are a very complicated thing, but here it's not relevant: all else being equal (and it is, as has been stated numerous times), why would you not choose the weapon that gives you this advantage, regardless of the magnitude of the advantage? That's optimal.
eRaz0r 11-11-05, 12:04 PM	Besides the 2d6 craps game and the 2d8 craps game is also not the best comparison, because they're both the same kind of distribution. Compare a 2d6 crap game with a 1d12 crap game and you'll see that you *can't* make the odds on the 1d12 game adjust from the 2d6 because the odds of a given roll are exactly the same. This is also an important distinction
eRaz0r 11-11-05, 12:44 PM	One other thought : one reason variance *in this instance* of comparable weapon damage might not be the problem that it's being made out to be is that we're not comparing two sides, but two aspects of the same side. It would be a better comparison of the two weapons to ask whether the kobold armed with the great-axe or the greatsword is the bigger threat to the PC with 12 hps. The PC is intended by the game design to live long enough to approach the average damage mark with his weapon. He's expected to make a large number of trials over the course of his career and in that case, the two weapons are probably equivalent. However, the underdog is not expected to survive the encounter. High variance weapons in the hands of a Kobold are quite a big threat. If we return to our example above, the Kobold with the greataxe may well be the bigger threat because, assuming that each of them hit, the greataxe has a 1 in 12 chance of doing 12 points of damage, but the greatsword has only a 1 in 36 chance to do the same. Flip this around though... does it make a difference to the PC vs average opponents? I think so. Take your example of the 225 hp critter and the 50 vs 1d100 weapon. Now make it a five 49 hp critters. Which weapon do you want then? The one that will, guaranteed, take out one critter in each swipe, or the one that might have you whittling away all day? Sure you *might* roll higher than 49 on each of five swings, or you might not. You might also waste 50 points of damage more than you needed to on one and take 5 swings to down another. Over the PC lifetime, the average damage will be the same, but for effectiveness, I'd say minimizing randomness is better for tactical and strategic reasons. If you know something will take 5 hits to take out, then you can use that knowledge to your advantage. If your variance is so high that you "waste" a telling blow on the henchman, but do pitiful damage vs the boss, it doesn't matter that your average damage for the encounter is the same, you're still dead.
KBAZZ 11-11-05, 02:52 PM	The feral template is a +1 level adjust for it you get _+6NatArm Huge stats to str and con wis with balance Negetive to int and dex You will get 2 claw atks. Improved grab Pounce Rake Rend Also you get darkvison to 120 feet eventual and fast healing 5 at the end. But even at level one you have fast healing 2
Tytalus 11-11-05, 03:26 PM	Flip this around though... does it make a difference to the PC vs average opponents? I think so. Take your example of the 225 hp critter and the 50 vs 1d100 weapon. Now make it a five 49 hp critters. Which weapon do you want then? The one that will, guaranteed, take out one critter in each swipe, or the one that might have you whittling away all day? Sure you *might* roll higher than 49 on each of five swings, or you might not. I've chosen my example on purpose. Sure, it's a valid point, but it's not realistic for discussions of low-HP opponents. The example is lacking because it has no notion of non-critical damage. There really is no D&D equivalent of a weapon that does always the same (non-trivial) damage. ALso, how many opponents do you face that are killed by a single hit (lowest levels aside)?