Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Longarms 10-10-05, 03:55 PM	In my experience, players seem to like the weapons that do double damage on NAT 18-20s rather than the weapons that do quadrulple damage on NAT 20. However, mathematically, wouldnt a weapon do the same overall amount of damage over time regardless of which of the above types? For example, lets compare the Falchion and the scythe. Both do an average 5 damage on normal hits but have the different crit ranges. Below is the damage each will do assuming each roll is a hit. Falchion: 20 = 10 19 = 10 18 = 10 17 = 5 Total = 35 Scythe: 20 = 20 19 = 5 18 = 5 17 = 5 Total = 35 Now, assuming each is a Keen weapon: Keen Falchion 20 = 10 19 = 10 18 = 10 17 = 10 16 = 10 15 = 10 Total: 60 Keen Scythe: 20 = 20 19 = 20 18 = 5 17 = 5 16 = 5 15 = 5 Total: 60 Do players who choose the 18-20 crit range weapons know this? Anyone else notice a preference for the 18-20 crit range weapons over the 4x weapons? Actually, after thinking about it, the 18-20 crit range weapons seems slightly better if you will be facing many weaker opponents. The 4x damage weapons seems better if you will be facing fewer tougher opponents (you might have a shot at killing one in a single hit by massive damage!... thereby ensuring your own safety.) I think the tactically better choice is to be prepared for fewer tougher opponents as those tend to be the scarier battles. That said, the light pick looks like a pretty sweet weapon for the left hand... or backup weapon for use with grappling...
masterofmayhem 10-10-05, 04:01 PM	Yes, mathematically they do the same amount of damage. As you said, though, those weapons with a larger threat range and smaller critical modifier will do more damage in the long run, which is why I prefer them. Getting a weak critical 15% of the time is better (in my opinion) than getting a strong one 5% of the time, if only for the reason that you do the same damage, but are less likely to "lose" damage, say, if you get a critical against a monster with only a few hit points left. Basically, if you have a monster with 100 HP, maybe you'll get three criticals with that rapier, or one with the scythe. If that one with the scythe comes when the monster has bery few hit points, it was basically useless, but at least two of the rapier's criticals will count for something. It all comes back to dependable versus exceptional. It's a similar premise with a d12 versus 2d6; one is more dependable than the other, but is also less likely to be exceptional.
spectralphoenix 10-10-05, 04:01 PM	Even if you factor in chances to hit, the damage is still the same. That said, I think it's more exciting to crit often. Additionally, over the course of a long battle damage will average out, but you are more likely to crit when it will make a difference.
Inigo Carmine 10-10-05, 04:19 PM	The weapons with large crit threat ranges have another drawback you forgot to mention: when you need to roll high to hit. This usually only comes into play with impr crit/keen, so I'll use that as an example. If you have a 15-20 threat range, but you need to roll an 18 + to even hit the enemy, the extra crit range is wasted. The being said, I prefer wide crit ranges myself, just because even when the x4 weapons are used to their fullest, I find it anti-climactic. If there's an enemy that was tough enough to need a x4 hit to take down, I would have rather fought him for more than half a round.
DrowSmurf 10-10-05, 04:31 PM	im not sure if this is just our houserule or not, but when i use a keen kurki with a 15-20 threat range... even if i normally need to roll a natural 18 to hit the monster i would auto hit with a 15-20 but i have to actually roll again to hit his AC to see if it crits... therefore i need to roll a 15-20 then an 18-20 to crit... so this way i auto hit 25% ofthe time... though i only do base 1d4 with a kurki... i love them slashing crooked daggers!
spectralphoenix 10-10-05, 04:32 PM	Are you considering what the weapons are? In the PHB, the only x4 critical weapons are the pick (heavy and light) the scythe, and one end of the gnome hooked hammer. How many players envision a character using those weapons compared to a rapier or scimitar? Yes, DrowSmurf, that is a houserule. Normally only a natural 20 automatically hits.
Merestil Haye 10-10-05, 04:33 PM	All other things being equal, it's better to choose the high crit multiplier weapon than the high threat range weapon. Comparing the number of hits delivered over the long haul needs to factor in the possibility that you might not hit your target, or might fail to confirm a threat. Assuming that the weapons are enhanced the same amount, and the wielders are equally skilled with their relative weapons, then you will see no diifference in damage output between the weapons until the number needed to hit rises above the low end of the threat range of the high-threat-range weapon. At that point, the high-multiplier weapon starts to outperform the high threat range weapon. The gap will peak when the to hit roll needed is equal to the lower bound of the high-multiplier weapon's threat range. The high threat range is probably more useful than the high multiplier only in situations where you are facing a very large number of low AC creatures (by which I mean creatures that you hit on relatively low rolls of the d20) because you need to deliver lots of little crits. However, in general choose the scythe over the falchion any day.
q'afuu 10-10-05, 04:39 PM	All other things being equal, it's better to choose the high crit multiplier weapon than the high threat range weapon. Not of you enhance your weapons with crit-depended enhancements, like the different bursts.
dedicated 10-10-05, 04:40 PM	The weapons with large crit threat ranges have another drawback you forgot to mention: when you need to roll high to hit. This usually only comes into play with impr crit/keen, so I'll use that as an example. If you have a 15-20 threat range, but you need to roll an 18 + to even hit the enemy, the extra crit range is wasted. The being said, I prefer wide crit ranges myself, just because even when the x4 weapons are used to their fullest, I find it anti-climactic. If there's an enemy that was tough enough to need a x4 hit to take down, I would have rather fought him for more than half a round. Crit threats have to be able to hit?
Longarms 10-10-05, 04:45 PM	"As you said, though, those weapons with a larger threat range and smaller critical modifier will do more damage in the long run, which is why I prefer them. " Actually I didn't say that. The whole point of my point was contrary to that. In the long run they do the same...
tarkin 10-10-05, 04:59 PM	While a 20x4 damage would theoretically do more damage (as an 18 might crit but miss, therefore doing no damage), in game there is also the excess damage effect. I don't care about damage beyond that which brings my target below 0. So the question becomes which is more likely to happen: 1) Go up against someone with a high AC and roll high enough to threaten a crit, but miss cause his AC is too high. (Keep in mind that with that high an AC, the chance of confirming the crit is low already, so the loss is not as great as you woudl think) 2) Go up against someone, fight for acouple of round, then, when you only need 20 more damage, get a crit for x4 doing x40. If you had got a x2 crit two rounds ago when you had rolled the 19, it would have ended the fight earlier. If you are more concerned about #1, get the x4 weapon. If you are more concerned about #2, the 18-20 weapon.
Zherog 10-10-05, 05:14 PM	Crit threats have to be able to hit? Yep. Let's take the Rapier. You have a +5 to your attack roll, and you rolled an 18. Your target's AC is 25, though - so you've missed, even though your attack roll landed in your threat range.
Tony Vargas 10-10-05, 05:16 PM	In my experience, players seem to like the weapons that do double damage on NAT 18-20s rather than the weapons that do quadrulple damage on NAT 20. However, mathematically, wouldnt a weapon do the same overall amount of damage over time regardless of which of the above types? Mathematically, yes. But, both will tend to fall short of that theoretical level. High-threat weapons can concieveably miss on a threat, and thus fail to achieve the expected damage over the long run. High-crit weapons can 'overkill' the target, wasting damage, and thus, likewise, fail to do as much long-run average damage as you might expect. In general, D&D is balanced with the PC facing foes that are weaker than themselves. This means that consistent performance is desireable for PCs, making the high-threat-range weapons more desireable. To look at it another way, PCs (especially serious melee types), should rarely face foes who they can't hit on a rolled 19, but will often face those that they can kill with a mere x2 crit (or, indeed, without criting at all). Conversely, a high crit weapon is ideal for mobs of weaker enemies hoping to bring down more powerful PCs, as a lucky natural 20 that hits also happens to be a threat. Coincidentally, the typical orc uses a Greatax.
Zuckerart 10-10-05, 05:26 PM	Crit threats have to be able to hit? Well, if you house-rule threats don't actually have to hit you'll see a lot of people fighting as follows with keen rapiers or scimitars: - take a -5 to hit from Combat Expertise for a +5 AC. - take another -BAB to hit for a +BAB to damage from Power Attack. - fight defensively for another -4 to hit and +2 AC (+3 if tumble 5). - wield two normal weapons in both hands without TWF for a -6 and -10 to hit This would result in a +7 or +8 to AC, -15/-19 (+STR and magic) attack rolls, and 1d6 + STR + BAB to damage. But you would still hit(not crit) 30% of the time no matter what the AC of your target.
Mandarbgrim 10-10-05, 05:34 PM	Another minor issue is that weapons with high crit modifiers are better at Coup de Gracing enemies. I personally prefer high threat modifiers myself. If I am that concerned about my melee damage output..I would almost be making sure that I am hitting on my threat range..and probably using power attack to make it that I ONLY hit on my threat range. I am partial to the Falchion.
Rulebook 10-10-05, 05:45 PM	my expierience is this: mobs of smaller enemies deserve high range weapons and cleave. a keen falchion cleaving is a fun thing to watch. big enemies deserve high multiplier weapons and power attack. a keen /burst/burst/burst/burst scythe is truly a thing of beauty and a terrible thing to behold.
NeueRegel 10-10-05, 07:38 PM	I've requested a chart showing the a-b/x2 = the 20/xZ exact comparisons. I'm told that the mathematics will be included. It's nice having friends in high places... With high IQ's... I'm sure it will be posted shortly. NeueRegel
Edymnion 10-10-05, 07:51 PM	Mathematically speaking, the average damage of an 18-20/x2 weapon is identical to the damage of a 20/x4 weapon. Here's the math for proof: Assuming the weapon does a base 1d6 damage. The average for a 1d6 roll is 3.5, so: 18-20/x2: You always miss on a 1. You do double damage on an 18, 19, and a 20. Hence, you do normal damage on 2-17. So, the equation is 16*(3.5)+3*(7)= 56 + 21 = 77 Divide that by the total number of outcomes (20), and you get: 77 / 20 = 3.85 damage per swing. 20/x4 You always miss on a 1. You do quadruple damage on a 20. Hence, you do normal damage on a 2-19. So, the equation is 18*(3.5)+1*(14) = 63 + 14 = 77 Divide that by the total number of outcomes (20), and you get: 77 / 20 = 3.85 damage per swing. They are EXACTLY the same. Over time, you will average the exact same damage reguardless of if you go for a high crit range, or a high crit mod. I'll leave the math up to you, but this trend holds true even when you add in enchantments like Flaming Burst that does more damage the higher your crit mod is. Doing the lower damage more often perfectly balances doing more damage less often. The only time it doesn't follow this trend is when you increase both the crit mod and the crit range. 19-20/x3 should be the same as 18-20/x2 or 20/x4, but lets look at the math: 17*(3.5) + 2*(10.5) = 59.5 + 21 = 80.5 / 20= 4.025 Which is obviously more than the 3.85 damage the other two gave. Do the math, and you'll discover that its actually equivolent of a 20/x5! So, bottom line is that normally, the two do equal amounts of damage. However, if you can get a high crit mod weapon that can also take Keen or some other crit range booster, you'll come out ahead on damage. On top of that, the high crit mod weapon is more likely to do over 50 points of damage in a single hit, and force a Save vs. Massive Damage, which could mean instant death for whatever you hit. So, beware the guy with the Keen Scythe!
Tony Vargas 10-10-05, 07:58 PM	19-20/x3 should be the same as 18-20/x2 or 20/x4, but lets look at the math: 17*(3.5) + 2*(10.5) = 59.5 + 21 = 80.5 / 20= 4.025 Which is obviously more than the 3.85 damage the other two gave. Do the math, and you'll discover that its actually equivolent of a 20/x5! Nod, which is equivalent to 17-20/x2... So, bottom line is that normally, the two do equal amounts of damage. However, if you can get a high crit mod weapon that can also take Keen or some other crit range booster, you'll come out ahead on damage. Actually, you'll still come out the same as an equally desireable high-threat weapon with keen. A keen greatax, for instance, at 19-20/x3 does, indeed, do /twice/ the average extra damage from crits as a normal one. So does a keen longsword at 17-20/x2. Keen doesn't favor high crit vs hight threat.
Merestil Haye 10-10-05, 09:12 PM	Not of you enhance your weapons with crit-depended enhancements, like the different bursts.If the enhancements are identically specified, they will either have the same effect on both weapons, or increase the the damage done by high crit weapons more than high threat range weapons if the to-hit roll number is greater than the lower bound of the high threat range weapon.
Thaebius 10-10-05, 09:34 PM	*Nods* Well said, all around. It's very well balanced, very well designed, and comes out perfectly to be a choice between less dependable, but more powerful, or less powerful, but more dependable. Now, one thing that was not factored: Important Targets. *Note: I don't have a calculator on me, nor do I have much time, so this math will be correct in principle, but theoretical. If someone feels like crunching numbers, kudos. Let us assume, against a powerful boss type foe, that you end up taking a total of 9 swings at him. (1 as a standard action, 2 full attacks, then he's brought down. Again, just an example). With a 18-20/x2 weapon, you will have x% chance of critical hit, same average damage as high crit mod, BUT: You will also have higher % chance to score a critical hit, and higher % chance of more critical hits. Important: Having a higher % chance of having ANY critical hits means you have Less % chance of having NO critical hits. Though probability is independant, and it is just superstition, when I critical twice with a high crit mod weapon against the unimportant minions, overkilling besides, I think "Great, there goes my chance to get one when it counts". With a higher crit mod, you'll do the same damage in the long run, higher chance to do death by massive damage in early levels, and all that jazz, but you also have a higher chance of it leaving you high and dry when you need it most. (As was pointed out, the combination of a warrior with Power attack (or even better, supreme power attack) and a high critical modifier weapon, together with a mage that specializes in sleep, hold person, and other paralysis effects, can be a very, Very potent combination.... so, if that's a possibility, it could sway the balance...)
Vaelan 10-10-05, 10:15 PM	Not of you enhance your weapons with crit-depended enhancements, like the different bursts. Wrong. A scythe with Flaming Burst deals 3d10 additional damage 5% of the time. A falchion with Flaming Burst deals 1d10 additional damage 15% of the time. On average... the scythe deals 5.5 * 3 * .05 fire damage, which can be simplified to 5.5 * .15 the falchion deals 5.5 * .15 fire damage.