Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rondulin 07-18-06, 10:51 AM	I'm trying to calculate average damage including criticals. Let's assume you attack (and hit) 20 times rolling 1 to 20. Greatsword average damage per hit: (18 x 7 + 28) / 20 = 7.7 Falchion average damage per hit: (17 x 5 +30) / 20 = 5,75 Is this right? I got the feeling I'm missing something. Help appreciated.
R2-DS 07-18-06, 12:03 PM	I'm trying to calculate average damage including criticals. Let's assume you attack (and hit) 20 times rolling 1 to 20. Greatsword average damage per hit: (18 x 7 + 28) / 20 = 7.7 Falchion average damage per hit: (17 x 5 +30) / 20 = 5,75 Is this right? I got the feeling I'm missing something. Help appreciated. Hmmmmm........I dont know what you're getting at but to simplify Greatsword Damage 1d10 for small weilder means average damage of 5 or 10 on a crit 2d6 for medium weilders means average damage of 6 or 12 on a crit Falchion Damage 1d6 for small weilders means average damage of 3 or 6 on a crit 2d4 for medium weilders means average damage of 4 or 8 on a crit Hope that clears it up for you.....
jaelis 07-18-06, 12:57 PM	Rondulin, your calculation would be correct if you hit no matter what you rolled. In reality that never happens since you miss on a 1 always. The way I think of it is like this: Normally, you roll once to see if you hit. If you do hit and roll a threat, you roll again. If that hits, then you crit. As long as every number you threat on hits, then that is statistically the same as first rolling to see if you hit, and if you do, rolling again always. If that second roll is a threat, then you crit. That makes it much easier to do the math: whatever your chance of hitting, if you do hit, your chance of critting is just your threat range divided by 20. So for a (medium) greatsword, you do an average of 7 on a regular hit. If you hit, you have a 10% chance to crit, which would be another 7 points. Your total average damage is then 7 + 10% of 7, which is 7.7. That's of course the same as what you got, but you also (seemed to) assume that you would hit every time, which isn't right or necessary. For a falchion, its 5 pts + 15% of 5, for 5.75. For a greataxe, it is 6.5 + 5% of 13, or 7.15. Now if not all of your threats hit, then you can't give a simple number. Your average damage per hit will depend on your opponents AC.
Lotus Crane 07-18-06, 01:05 PM	Before you start trying to correct people's math, learn some basic math yourself. Greatsword Damage 1d10 for small weilder means average damage of 5 or 10 on a crit 5.5, or 11 on a crit, because on a d10 roll, you have an equal chance of rolling a 5 or 6. 2d6 for medium weilders means average damage of 6 or 12 on a crit 7, or 14 on a crit, because on a d6 roll, you have an equal chance of rolling a 3 or 4. Falchion Damage 1d6 for small weilders means average damage of 3 or 6 on a crit 3.5, or 7 on a crit, because on a d6 roll, you have an equal chance of rolling a 3 or 4. 2d4 for medium weilders means average damage of 4 or 8 on a crit 5, or 10 on a crit, because on a d4 roll, you have an equal chance of rolling a 2 or 3.
Rondulin 07-18-06, 01:42 PM	Rondulin, your calculation would be correct if you hit no matter what you rolled. In reality that never happens since you miss on a 1 always. That's true but for comparison it does not matter as it is a miss chance that is same for every weapon. Of course in real the average damage would be 7,35 an not 7,7 for a greatsword. The way I think of it is like this: Normally, you roll once to see if you hit. If you do hit and roll a threat, you roll again. If that hits, then you crit. As long as every number you threat on hits, then that is statistically the same as first rolling to see if you hit, and if you do, rolling again always. If that second roll is a threat, then you crit. That makes it much easier to do the math: whatever your chance of hitting, if you do hit, your chance of critting is just your threat range divided by 20. That's the same way I calculate it (therefore we get the same results). So my calculation seems to be right Now if not all of your threats hit, then you can't give a simple number. Your average damage per hit will depend on your opponents AC. That's true. But for simplicity one can assume that all threats hit (otherwise it would be a very tough monster). Now if my calculation is right that would be: greatsword: 7,7 points of average damage greataxe: 7,15 falchion: 5,75 It seems to me that the greatword is much better than a falchion (considering that some monsters are immune to crits the falchion even gets worse).
jaelis 07-18-06, 08:15 PM	It seems to me that the greatword is much better than a falchion (considering that some monsters are immune to crits the falchion even gets worse). If you have substantial extra damage and keen or improved critical, the falchion is superior. For instance, say it's a +5 weapon, you have a +6 Str bonus, you're power attacking for +4 damage, and you have a +2 bonus from your pal's bard song. The greatsword (with Imp Crit) does 32.4 while the falchion does 32.5. But I agree that in most cases you'd be better off with the greatsword. Especially since Imp. Crit. is not a particularly good feat choice for a greatsword. I like to houserule the greatsword down to 1d12 and the falchion up to 1d10. I think that makes them pretty comparable.
Rondulin 07-19-06, 05:18 AM	If you have substantial extra damage and keen or improved critical, the falchion is superior. For instance, say it's a +5 weapon, you have a +6 Str bonus, you're power attacking for +4 damage, and you have a +2 bonus from your pal's bard song. The greatsword (with Imp Crit) does 32.4 while the falchion does 32.5. Well, that's a pretty extreme example with lots of bonuses. But even then the falchion deals only slightly more damage.
Leilond 07-19-06, 05:58 AM	Statistics isn't so simple. The average damage is calculated basing on your BAB because the higher it is, the more you confirm criticals. The same for the opponent AC I've made an excel sheet where you put in Enanchement bonus on weapon Critical Threat range Weapon min damage Strenght bonus Number of hand used (1 or 2) Weapon min damage Weapon max damage (average is always (min+max)/2) Power attack value used Critic multiplier BAB Other to hit bonus not previous inclued (weapon focus for example) Other to damage bonus to damage not previous included (weapon spec, for example) And calculate the average damage for a set of AC from 15 to 35 both with and without improved critical Anyone who want hit ask at leilond@hotmail.com
Leilond 07-19-06, 06:40 AM	Well, that's a pretty extreme example with lots of bonuses. But even then the falchion deals only slightly more damage. Not quite A very strong fighter, with power attack and a good weapon (+2 or better) with weapon specializzation is average BETTER with falchion than two handed sword People really undestime the threat range increased with two hand power attack. Remember that power attack damage bonus is doubled when two handed, and critial double this. This mean that power attack of 5 means a +20 damage on a x2 critical. A 18 strenght 12° level warrior with weapon specializzation and improved critical with a +2 weapon: Using 5 power attack the avg damage is better with falchion than two handed sword against all enemy with AC lower than 31. The more the plain bonus (strenght or enanchement bonus on weapon) and the more this difference go up; With 22 str the difference is so high that the falchion win without power attacking until AC 38 The falchion is HARDLY understimated It is less powerfull than two handed sword at first levels, but the more the plain bonus (strenght boost by levels and items, enanchement on weapons, greater weapon specializzation, improved critical), the more it become usefull for STRENGHT based fighter. A strenght based 12th level optimized character is better with the falchion that with two handed sword
mvincent 07-19-06, 01:15 PM	A strenght based 12th level optimized character is better with the falchion that with two handed swordOk, I have an average damage of: falchion=5 greatsword=7 With criticals falchion=5+(15%)=5.75 greatsword=7+(10%)=7.7 With improved crit (or keen): falchion=5+(30%)=6.5 greatsword=7+(20%)=8.4 With +10 points of damage from strength and or enhancements: falchion=15+(30%)=19.5 greatsword=17+(20%)=20.4 With +20 points of bonus damage from adders (strength, enhancement, weapon specialization, power-attack, buffs, etc.): falchion=25+(30%)=32.5 greatsword=27+(20%)=32.4 So, it seems that (even with improved crit.) the falchion doesn't start to become useful until you start doing large amounts of damage (let's say +3 weapon, 20 strength and powerattack -5 for a total +20 bonus to damage). Note: this doesn't account for creatures that are immune to criticals, or for wasted damage from overkill, but it also doesn't account for overcoming DR (which balances the equation somewhat). Also, it appears that the keen ability doesn't become more useful than an elemental enhancement (3.5 average damage) until you have +19 points of damage adders (with a falchion) or +28 extra damage (with a greatsword).
Leilond 07-19-06, 01:37 PM	You made one great error The average damage must be calculated including the to hit % and cannot be calculated just PLAIN. Your calculation is made basing on a ALWAYS hit situation, that is obvious plain good for two handed sword that has a +2 to damage ALWAYS instead of only when you hit and do not crit For example if you need 10 to hit, your calculation give a plain +2 to damage for two handed sword for all to hit result between 1 to 9 instead of being a "draw" As I said before, statistic isn't so simple when so much dice roll are involved. If you really want a well designed excel sheet mail me at leilond@hotmail.com It's my job, I do these things all day, all year The same is done by someone at WoTc I think, because I really found some good thinking in a lot of numeric stuff in the RAW
mvincent 07-19-06, 02:03 PM	Your calculation is made basing on a ALWAYS hit situation, that is obvious plain good for two handed sword that has a +2 to damage ALWAYS instead of only when you hit and do not crit For example if you need 10 to hit, your calculation give a plain +2 to damage for two handed sword for all to hit result between 1 to 9 instead of being a "draw"My calculations also assumed that a critical is always confirmed, which is better for the Falchion (which I thought balanced out the fact that hits have a greater % of threatening a critical in the first place). What's the actual math on that?
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 03:13 PM	notes: assumption 1 - your damage calc assumes the threat roll turns into a crit, which is not a certainty. ie. a full 15%/10% of Falcion/Greatsword strikes will not necessarily do crit damage, whereas you calculated damage assuming every threat is a crit. the modifiers to damage would make no difference The greatsword is better than the falchion in all cases.
mvincent 07-19-06, 03:46 PM	notes: assumption 1 - your damage calc assumes the threat roll turns into a crit, which is not a certainty.That's what I just said above. The reasoning for that is to balance out the fact (as alluded to by Leilond) that, for example, if a person consistently hit only on a 11+, he will have on average twice as many critical threats per hit than he has critical threats per swing. The fact that those criticals have to be confirmed should then balance the averages out (as only half of the above threats will actually be confirmed).
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 03:51 PM	Assumptions: Level 12 Fighter Str 20 Weapon Focus & Specialization with appropriate weapon. Str +5 to hit / +5 to dmg Feat +1 to hit / +2 to dmg BAB +12 to hit Total to hit +18 Total to dmg +7 Assume AC 10 Results F/GS Miss 5% / 5% Hit 80% / 85% Threat No Crit 0.75% / .5% Threat Crit 14.25% / 9.5% avg Falchion damage = (.05x0)+(.8x12)+(.0075x12)+(.1425x17)=12 .1125 avg Greatsword damage = (.05x0)+(.85x14)+(.005x14)+(.095x21)=13. 965 oops forgot to add 1/2 Str mod to both for 2H weapon after factoring avg Falchion damage = (.05x0)+(.8x15)+(.0075x15)+(.1425x20)=14 .535 avg Greatsword damage = (.05x0)+(.85x17)+(.005x17)+(.095x24)=16. 815
starfire311 07-19-06, 04:02 PM	notes: The greatsword is better than the falchion in all cases. This is simply not true, and has been proven false
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 04:36 PM	continuing previous example Assume AC 20 exact same results as AC 10 shown previously Assume AC 30 Results F/GS Miss 55% / 55% Hit 30% / 35% Threat No Crit 8.25% / 5.5% Threat Crit 7.75% / 4.5% avg Falchion= (.55x0)+(.3x15)+(.0825x15)+(.0775x20)=7. 2875 avg Greatsword= (.55x0)+(.35x17)+(.055x17)+(.045x24)=7.9 65
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 04:50 PM	continuing Assume AC 36 Results F / GS Miss 85% / 85% Hit 0% / 5% Threat No Crit 12.75% / 8.5% Threat Crit 2.25% / 1.5% avg Falchion dmg= (.85x0)+(0x15)+(.1275x15)+(.0225x20)=2.3 625 avg Greatsword dmg= (.85x0)+(.05x17)+(.085x17)+(.015x24)=2.6 55
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 04:58 PM	continuing Assume AC 38+ Results F / GS Miss 95% / 95% Hit 0% / 0% Threat No Crit 4.75% / 4.75% Threat Crit 0.25% / 0.25% avg Falchion dmg= (.95x0)+(0x15)+(.0475x15)+(.0025x20)=0.7 625 avg Greatsword dmg= (.95x0)+(0x17)+(.0475x17)+(.0025x24)=0.8 675
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 05:02 PM	This is simply not true, and has been proven false you can't argue with the math. maybe you can find fault with the assumptions or process. but the example shows Greatsword beats out Falchion at every AC with the Fighters given.
mvincent 07-19-06, 05:15 PM	you can't argue with the math.Can you try it with +20 or more points of bonus damage from other adders? (edit: forgot to mention also adding improved crit or keen) maybe you can find fault with the assumptions or process.Earlier you stated: "the modifiers to damage would make no difference". I don't believe that is the case. Since the modifiers are multiplied by a critical, there should be a break-point where the Falchion is more effective.
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 05:44 PM	Assume AC 20 additional damage bonus to +20 Str +5 +1/2 Str +2 Specialization +2 Power Attack +5 Weapon bonus +5 some other bonus +1 Falchion 2d4+20 (crit 4d4+20) Greatsword 2d6+20 (crit 4d6+20) Results F/GS Miss 5% / 5% Hit 80% / 85% Threat No Crit 0.75% / .5% Threat Crit 14.25% / 9.5% expected Falchion dmg = (.05x0)+(.80x25)+(.0075x25)+(.1425x30)=2 4.4625 exp. Greatsword dmg = (.05x0)+(.85x27)+(.005x27)+(.095x34)=26. 315 I expect the progression will remain with an advantage to the sword as the AC gets larger however, with Improved Critical Falchion may overcome Greatsword... the Threat range "doubles" assuming that means 18-20 becomes 15-20 for Falchion and 17-20 for Greatsword. If "doubles" means move starting range down one (like only 20 becoming 19-20 hence double) then Falchion becomes 17-20 and Greatsword becomes 18-20. If it works the former way I suspect Falchion could overtake Greatsword, the latter wouldn't do it I suspect. Essentially the Falchion crit likelihood will provide enough damage to overcome the 2 point deficit in the average damage dealt by both weapons. Increasing the additional damage will not directly do this, however, it makes the average difference less relevant.
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 05:58 PM	Alright just noticed a discrepancy in the RAW. Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied. Critical: The entry in this column notes how the weapon is used with the rules for critical hits. When your character scores a critical hit, roll the damage two, three, or four times, as indicated by its critical multiplier (using all applicable modifiers on each roll), and add all the results together. Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit. it's subtle but notice the difference? first quote says extra damage dice meaning dmg mod is multiplied and added to total of all dice rolled. second interpretation says damage over normal damage is not multiplied this ruling impacts our scenario.... First iterpretation Falchion damage = 2d4+mods and crit = 4d4+(2xmods) Second interpretation Falchion damage = 2d4+mods and crit = 4d4+mods which way is the correct interpretation?
GothiousRex 07-19-06, 06:05 PM	I think the First is correct but I always have done it the second way. I suspect the intent of saying dice in first section was for Rogue Sneak Attack extra damage dice which wouldn't be multiplied. Whereas the second says roll all dice with applicable modifiers and total them, then lists an exception which would essentially nullify the add modifiers part. The rules in the Weapons section need to be more explicit. Note to Self: start calculating damage first way. PS- Falchion kicks Greatsword's derriere if damage mods are doubled with a crit, because it has a larger threat range.
Witchblade 07-19-06, 06:26 PM	GothRex, please edit your posts instead of posting like 10 times in a row. It's more practical. Also, I'm 99% sure the 'extra damage above your normal damage' only means Shock, Flaming etc. but not weapon specialization, strength etc. That would also explain the 'including all appropriate modifiers' which wouldn't make sense otherwise.
mvincent 07-19-06, 07:04 PM	first quote says extra damage dice meaning dmg mod is multiplied and added to total of all dice rolled. second interpretation says damage over normal damage is not multipliedExtra damage dice is not multiplied. Regular (non-dice) extra damage is multiplied.
mvincent 07-19-06, 07:05 PM	the Threat range "doubles" assuming that means 18-20 becomes 15-20 for FalchionThat is correct
starfire311 07-19-06, 07:11 PM	Assume AC 20 additional damage bonus to +20 Str +5 +1/2 Str +2 Specialization +2 Power Attack +5 Weapon bonus +5 some other bonus +1 Falchion 2d4+20 (crit 4d4+20) Greatsword 2d6+20 (crit 4d6+20) Results F/GS Miss 5% / 5% Hit 80% / 85% Threat No Crit 0.75% / .5% Threat Crit 14.25% / 9.5% expected Falchion dmg = (.05x0)+(.80x25)+(.0075x25)+(.1425x30)=2 4.4625 exp. Greatsword dmg = (.05x0)+(.85x27)+(.005x27)+(.095x34)=26. 315 I expect the progression will remain with an advantage to the sword as the AC gets larger however, with Improved Critical Falchion may overcome Greatsword... the Threat range "doubles" assuming that means 18-20 becomes 15-20 for Falchion and 17-20 for Greatsword. If "doubles" means move starting range down one (like only 20 becoming 19-20 hence double) then Falchion becomes 17-20 and Greatsword becomes 18-20. If it works the former way I suspect Falchion could overtake Greatsword, the latter wouldn't do it I suspect. Essentially the Falchion crit likelihood will provide enough damage to overcome the 2 point deficit in the average damage dealt by both weapons. Increasing the additional damage will not directly do this, however, it makes the average difference less relevant. OK I see now why you are believing this... your math is horribly flawed Falchion 2d4+20 (crit 4d4+20) Greatsword 2d6+20 (crit 4d6+20) this is incorrect should be Falchion 2d4+20 (crit 4d4+40) Greatsword 2d6+20 (crit 4d6+40) thus leading to expected Falchion dmg = (.05x0)+(.80x25)+(.0075x25)+(.1425x30)=2 4.4625 exp. Greatsword dmg = (.05x0)+(.85x27)+(.005x27)+(.095x34)=26. 315 this is incorrect it should be expected Falchion dmg = (.05x0)+(.80x25)+(.0075x25)+(.1425x50)=2 7.1325 exp. Greatsword dmg = (.05x0)+(.85x27)+(.005x27)+(.095x54)=28. 215 now if you can get the bonus damage to be +40 you get expected Falchion dmg = (.05x0)+(.80x45)+(.0075x45)+(.1425x90)=4 9.1625 exp. Greatsword dmg = (.05x0)+(.85x47)+(.005x47)+(.095x94)=49. 115 at this point the falchion has ecplised the greatsword, and has a higher expected damage.
mvincent 07-19-06, 07:37 PM	it should be expected Falchion dmg = (.05x0)+(.80x25)+(.0075x25)+(.1425x50)=2 7.1325 exp. Greatsword dmg = (.05x0)+(.85x27)+(.005x27)+(.095x54)=28. 215Now try it with keen or improved crit
Leilond 07-20-06, 04:51 AM	Ok, it's going to be long and boring. Statistic is my job, and it is usually understimated and reduced to ADD, DIVIDE and MULTIPLY numbers, but it isn,t All calculation are light approached and not full improved to maximize the correctness, but they are enought to give a significant correct touch of what i'm talking about A good statistical worker do not simply calculate AVERAGE VALUES, but give a weight and a meaning to this values A good statistical worker know that when only few random results are involved (less than HUNDREDS), average values doesn't have important meaning, more importan is the "average number of significant result" To explain better this concept we'll work with an example A 12th level fighter with average equipement 22 strenght (20 + gauntlet of ogre power) +1 weapon (two handed sword or falchion) Greater weapon focus Greater weapon specializzation To hit BAB +12 Enanchement to weapon +1 Weapon focus +2 Strenght bonus +6 Total to hit modifier +21/+16/+11 Damage Strenght +9 (+6 x 1,5) Weapon enanchement +1 Specializzation +4 Total damage bonus +14 This fighter is against a 27 AC monster with 80 hp (a simple monster) Average plain damage (no critical) with two handed sword is 21 Average plain damage (no critical) with falchion is 19 Every round the fighter has this % of hitting with his 3 attacks: 75% - 50% - 25% This means that, without critical hits involved the fighter will deal this average damages EACH ROUND Two handed sword: 75% x 21 + 50% x 21 + 25% x 21 = 31,5 Falchion: 75% x 19 + 50% x 19 + 25% x 19 = 28,5 Both require average 3 rounds to kill the monster As you see the difference is only 3 damage EACH ROUND Every round the fighter has this % of making and confirming a critical hit with his 3 swings Two handed sword: 7,5% - 5% - 2,5% Two handed sword with improved critical: 15% - 10% - 5% Falchion: 11,25% - 7,5% - 3,75% Falchion with improved critical: 22,5% - 15% - 7,5% If the fighter is able to score at least a critical, the monster will probably die in 2 rounds instead of 3 This are the % of scoring at least one confirmed critical hit in the first two rounds of full attack You have to trust me here, because is a bit long, but if you want I'll explain this calculation too Two handed: 26,59% Two handed with improved critical: 47,18% (yes, not plain double, I'll explain if you want) Falchion: 37,56% Falchion with improved critical: 62,87% (same as above, not plain double) This is a WEIGHT event based calculation. What does all this mean? That the two point average damage difference between weapons plain average damage probably won't change the number of rounds needed to kill out a monster (3 average damage difference each round), but a single critical hit is so statistically rilevant that can completely change the combat result and the number of rounds needed to kill out the monster In our example A two handed fighter has 26,59% chance to kill out the monster in two rounds instead of three A two handed fighter improved critical has 47,18% chance of doing it A falchion fighter has 37,56% of doing the same thing A falchion fighter with improved crit has 62,87% to resolve the fight in two rounds (this last four % can be tuned a bit, but they are enought for what we need) This is compensated by the fact that there are monsters immune to criticals and that every now and then the two handed sword can deal very good damage with the 2d6. So we have an AVERAGE more effective weapon (falchion) against a more occasionally deadly one (two handed sword). If we let keen stack with improved critical (like 3.0 rule) we'll obtain this result Two handed: 62,87% of confirm at least one critical in the first two rounds: 5,29% or doing two in the first round Falchion: 76,83% (23% only in the first round, 39% in both round, 23% only in the second): 10,16% of doing two in the first round What does all this long post means? Critical happen every now and then Every critical hit you score and confirm usually let you end the fight one round before the average time needed without criticals Thie means that critical hits have a value that isn't easly valuable and cannot simply be reduce to AVERAGE DAMAGE Now MY interpretation of this numbers. Only my opinon from now to the end First: if you let keen and improved critical stack, you're going to have more than a critical each two rounds, average 2 criticals each 3 rounds with falchion Against critical vulnerable monster, the falchion has an higher % than two handed swords to finish out the fight before the average rounds needed Against critical immune monster, the two handed sword can do a bit more damage each round, but USUALLY not enought to change a lot. Sure SOMETIMES you're lucky and you put a monster to -1 or -2, but at high levels, when each hit deal between 20 and 30 damage it is not so common. So against critical immune monster the two handed sword is SOMETIMES better tha falchion Statistic isn't simply add and multitply numbers So, power player talking, the Falchion is USUALLY better Fluffy talking I will take a Scythe only to cry for the mad damage that you can do with that x4 and end the fight with a single very lucky shot in the first round power attack round :D
Rondulin 07-20-06, 08:51 AM	I think I hate maths ;) .
thepuregamer 07-20-06, 09:47 AM	Anyone want to calculate the damage spread of falchions vs. Greatswords when keen and improved crit stack?
starfire311 07-20-06, 10:29 AM	Anyone want to calculate the damage spread of falchions vs. Greatswords when keen and improved crit stack? when I do expected damage calculations, I have a spreadsheet that I can enter tons of variables in, but when just looking for a basic comparsion between 2 weapons.. I just always assume a 50% chance to hit, and then calculate expected damage that way. under these circumstances Greatsword exp dam 3.85 Falchion exp dam 2.875 Keen Greatsword exp dam 4.2 Keen Falchion exp dam 3.25 now with 18 bonus damage Keen Greatsword exp dam 15 Keen Falchion exp dam 14.95 now with 19 bonus damage Keen Greatsword exp dam 15.6 Keen Falchion exp dam 15.6 now with 20 bonus damage Keen Greatsword exp dam 16.2 Keen Falchion exp dam 16.25 You can see that teh break even point in this calculation is 19 bonus damage, if you have less than this the keen greatsword is better, and if you have more the keen falchion is better.
mvincent 07-20-06, 12:12 PM	now with 20 bonus damage Keen Greatsword exp dam 16.2 Keen Falchion exp dam 16.25 You can see that teh break even point in this calculation is 19 bonus damage, if you have less than this the keen greatsword is better, and if you have more the keen falchion is better.Thank you. This is what I claimed earlier, but both GothiousRex and Leilond had contested my calculations (for entirely different reasons). I believe both of their reasons were incorrect.
mvincent 07-20-06, 12:14 PM	The average damage must be calculated including the to hit % For our purposes, I believe you are incorrect.
Leilond 07-20-06, 12:28 PM	Thank you. This is exactly what I claimed earlier... and both GothiousRex and Leilond contested my calculations (for entirely different reasons), but never backed it up. Never backed it up? An entire LONG LONG post in the previous page, with math, calculations, data analysis and the result is "never backed it up"! Ok, I give up My job is doing statistic programs, projections and statistcal plan since 1992 I lost half an hour to make a long post that explain how to work with low event statistical event, explaining how to work with datas... and the post was just ignored... Now I ask myself... why? Finally I understand my old math teacher and his frustration!
GothiousRex 07-20-06, 12:41 PM	OK I see now why you are believing this... your math is horribly flawed. Actually, the math was good. The process was bad. I was unaware that damage modifiers are also multiplied which led to an incorrect average crit damage. Once I found that out I agree that the Falchion is better. Leilond: What is your native/primary language? Quelquefois c'est difficile à suivre vos explications mais vous avez raison.
Leilond 07-20-06, 12:46 PM	Leilond: What is your native/primary language? Italian Sorry, I don't speak french at all
mvincent 07-20-06, 01:24 PM	Never backed it up?I had changed my statement within moments, eliminating that phrase (evidently you responded quickly). Still, your explanation did not seem to address what you stated was incorrect with my previous calculations (nor my subsequent counter-point, where I specifically asked you about the math). It seemed more to focus on this: "two point average damage difference between weapons plain average damage probably won't change the number of rounds needed to kill out a monster (3 average damage difference each round), but a single critical hit is so statistically rilevant" Which I also don't believe is correct. Given the variables of monster hp (i.e. you can really determine when they'll go down, how many you will be facing, etc.), and the possibility of damage overage (i.e. overkill), the side-effect of criticals would actually be less favorable compared to pure damage averages. I believe DR compensates this a bit, but probably not enough to make up for the creatures that are immune to criticals. However, for our purposes, calculating that is not really needed. My job is doing statistic programs, projections and statistcal plan since 1992 I lost half an hour to make a long post that explain how to work with low event statistical eventI'm a Quality Assurance Engineer (i.e. my job is to find defects that other engineers make), and I waste a *lot* more time than that on these boards, often in situations similar to this (and I have typically been proven correct), so I feel I've earned some benefit of the doubt on these boards. I respect your abilities, and I admire the fact that you can debate this in a secondary language, but past experience has told me that (on these boards) I've been correct far more often than not, even against well-credentialed debaters like yourself. My claim (that you appeared to dispute earlier) was that to-hit %'s were not needed for the purposes of my calculations. This appears to be vindicated by the fact that later calculations that included a to-hit % arrived at the same break-point for the falchion that I had predicted. Pointing to yet other things that could come into play is irrelevant for this particular point. You appear to have said I was incorrect on this specific point even though I appear to be correct (via the above calculations). If that is true, it should be acknowledged before I can begin to have good faith in your subsequent points.