Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elessar 08-12-06, 01:28 AM	I've been thinking lately about critical hits and whether a higher range or a higher multiplier is better. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I've always guessed that sword criticals (that is 19-20/x2) are better than axe criticals (x3) simply because it's better to have more criticals than to have the rare "really critical" critical. But I was wondering if, given the fact that the PCs last longer than any other character in the game (since the game is of course focused around them), it would be better to go for higher crits. Individual monsters generally don't ever make criticals against the PCs, since most of them die. Therefore, the PCs don't really need to have all that many criticals unless their DM regularly pits them against overwhelming opponents. I guess the problem with sacrificing quantity of criticals for quality, though, is that you can't "direct" which enemies take the critical hits. You might roll a whopper of a hit with a greataxe but just end up killing a goblin several times over. So I'm uncertain. Has anyone ever made an analysis of which critical (19-20/x2 or x3) is more useful in an average campaign (rather the one that does the most average damage.)
Atirakis 08-12-06, 01:36 AM	More = better... always. Yes getting a higher multiplier is nice but its worthless if your only hitting that crit roughly 2-3% of the time.
Subedei 08-12-06, 01:40 AM	We over at the CO boards tend to hold the opposite opinion - higher multipliers are better. Someone worked out the math for it at some point and it was pretty convincing but I really don't remember it all very well, maybe it's still around here somewhere. That's not to say there aren't certain builds that make better use of high ranges.
Atirakis 08-12-06, 02:09 AM	I could be wrong but unless the build is finding a way to deal out crits more often then the difference between 19-20 x2 and x3 is proably in favor of doing crits 2 times as often rather then 1.5 times as critical
Atirakis 08-12-06, 04:05 AM	So far the Char Opers have said that range is better than multiplier but that obviously if you can get both thats even better still :D
SodaGuy 08-12-06, 04:13 AM	Seems to me that two crits for a total of 4x damage is better than one for x3. EDIT- Nevermind, that's wrong.
DM Zoc 08-12-06, 04:17 AM	A point to be made is that a normal axe always threatens a critical on a 20, while a longsword only threatens a critical on a 19 if that modified attack roll hits the AC. Personally, I've always thought it a stupid rule that a 20 always hits, but I seem to be alone in that opinion.
runestar 08-12-06, 08:08 AM	I suppose it would matter on how easily you can land your hits. If you are confident of being to confirm threat ranges consistently, I don't mind having a larger threat range at expense of a lower crit multiplier. If my foes all have very high acs, then perhaps a larger crit multiplier at expense of a lower threat range might be more apt. It would vary based on how individual campaigns are run, I guess. :)
lint trap 08-12-06, 08:16 AM	I've always prefered a larger crit range (18-20/x2) over a larger crit multiplier (20/x4), even though they deal the same average damage, because of the flatter damage curve. Let's face it; any damage dealt to a creature over [current hp +10] is wasted. With a flatter curve, there's less chance of getting "damage overflow" and wasting 60 hp of damage on a creature with only 8 hp left.
rogue_lettuce 08-12-06, 08:22 AM	It's a well known fact amongst people trying to balance weapons that 19-20/x3 is normally pretty broken. Ideally, you want to get Power Critical, Keen/Improved Critical, on a x4 weapon, and if possible, something else to increase the threat range (even if it's only by one point) for maximum damage output. That or getting your threat range REALLY low like the 8-20 ranges that would be possible if improved crit/keen still stacked. :)
rogue_lettuce 08-12-06, 08:23 AM	I've always prefered a larger crit range (18-20/x2) over a larger crit multiplier (20/x4), even though they deal the same average damage, because of the flatter damage curve. Let's face it; any damage dealt to a creature over [current hp +10] is wasted. With a flatter curve, there's less chance of getting "damage overflow" and wasting 60 hp of damage on a creature with only 8 hp left. This is a good point, but it's also true that you've got the issue of how much damage the creature deals back. If you get a x4 crit on a dragon, you'll take it out of action MUCH faster, saving resources and possibly people's lives. But I agree you have a point here.
VonRichthofen 08-12-06, 09:54 AM	Without any feats or magic, I guess it comes bout even. A 19-20x2 weapon does about the same damage as a 20x3 one, only if you need a 20 to hit & confirm, the 20x3 becomes better. But that's a 1:400 chance anyway, so it won't exactly topple the game if it occurs. A low multiplier has a better chance of not wasting points in overkill, while a high crit multiplier might be an advantage against high-DR creatures. Remember, however: Many feats such as Telling Blow and Resounding Blow take a crit to activate, no matter the multiplier. Same thing applies to many nasty crit-triggered enchantments, such as Enfeebling or Life-Stealing. Thus it is clear that a greater crit range is better if taking into account the whole D&D game and its' possibilities.
azmodael 08-12-06, 10:16 AM	Overall more criticals is better vs weaker opponents. Heavy criticals are better agains mighty opponents and creatures with DR. And finally more criticals is a bit better then more powerful ones, but once in a while a x3 crit might tip the balance of forces in a battle, especially in the hands of a Barbarian with power attack. Crit x3 = attack reduced x 6 DMG. Sweet :D
Fargren 08-12-06, 10:29 AM	Assuming all criticalls confirm: We ahve two weapon, one that deals 1d6 critical 18-20/x2, and one that deal 1d6 crit x4 Over 20 rounds of combat, the first weapon will have scored 3 criticalls, so it will have dealt 23d6 of damage. Over the same time, the other weapon will have dealt one crtiall, and a total of 23d6 damage. Wich means they are the ame. Except, the fisrt one actually has to roll thre times to confirm, and the other one only has to roll once. Wich means the first one has a higher chance of doing less damage.
Teydyn 08-12-06, 11:04 AM	Except, the fisrt one actually has to roll thre times to confirm, and the other one only has to roll once. Wich means the first one has a higher chance of doing less damage. And a higher chance of doing more... if the high crit multiplier does not confirm. Always look at it from both sides. You already showed that both can do 3d6 more damage from criticals. If the chance to confirm a critical is (lets say) 50% the chances are: extra damage 18-20/*2 20/*4 0 12,5% 50% 1d6 12,5% 0% 2d6 12,5% 0% 3d6 12,5% 50% In average you do an extra 1,5 d6 of damage.
VonRichthofen 08-12-06, 11:52 AM	Overall more criticals is better vs weaker opponents. Heavy criticals are better agains mighty opponents and creatures with DR. And finally more criticals is a bit better then more powerful ones, but once in a while a x3 crit might tip the balance of forces in a battle, especially in the hands of a Barbarian with power attack. Crit x3 = attack reduced x 6 DMG. Sweet :D It's still sweeter to have "only" 4x PA damage on twice as much attacks if you have any of the aforementioned feats/enchantments. (and many more) No, no matter how you turn it, taking into account the whole game, range is better.
Vaelan 08-12-06, 11:38 PM	19-20/x2 and 20/x2 are statistically equivalent, as are 18-20/x2 and 20/x4. Statements like VonRichthofen's are worthless unless you back them up with facts, rather than mere guesses.
Rhuxley 08-13-06, 01:11 AM	Overall more criticals is better vs weaker opponents. Heavy criticals are better agains mighty opponents and creatures with DR. And finally more criticals is a bit better then more powerful ones, but once in a while a x3 crit might tip the balance of forces in a battle, especially in the hands of a Barbarian with power attack. Crit x3 = attack reduced x 6 DMG. Sweet :D easy fix... weild a rapier when fighting goblins & a heavy pick when fighting the BBEG.
Nadaka 08-13-06, 09:27 AM	Higher critical multiplier is "better". Lets look at this mathematically... every point of crit range means you crit of 5% of all hits. The bonus damage from a x2 crit is 100%, the bonus damage from x3 is 200%, x4 is 300% etc. So to find the effect of critical hits, multiply its critical threat range (in percent) by its bonus damage percent. Now the thing you notice is that 19/x2 = +10% = 20/x3 and 18/x2 = 15% = 20x4. They each provide the exact same damage bonus. However to achieve this we assumed that every critical threat is also a hit. This is not the case. if you can only hit on a 20, a critical threat range of 19/x2 is wasted because rolling a 19 may threat, but still won't hit. This is one reason that higher multiplier is better. Because you can always hit on a 20. Another reason it is better is that it is easier to increase threat range via improved critical or keen enchantment. Why is this so? because 19/x4 = 30% bonus damage while 17/x2 = 20% bonus damage. This effect is an artifact of 3.5 editions change in threat range modification, a x2 threat range increased damage equally for all weapons regardles of original multiplier, while a +1 favors that with the higher multiplier. Also note that in the rare and often fatal circumstance of fighting creatures with DR that aproaches twice your normal max damage, a higher threat range proves less effective because the higher threat range means twice as many hits that do 0(mostly), 1 or 2 damage while the increased multiplier may give half as many hits, but most of them will do significantly more than twice the damage. I'll provide an example. weapon 1: 1d6 19/x2 weapon 2: 1d6 20/x3 vs DR 10 for weapon 1 only 8.3% of criticals deal any damage, and the overall average damage is 0.111111_ * 2(twice as many critical hits) = 0.222222_. for weapon 2 fully 50% of criticals deal some damage and the overall average damage is 1.45833_. THe same effect applies for less extreme cases of DR, its just that the difference is not quite as noticable. The only thing balancing in favor of higher crit range are effects that do not multiply normally, like sharpness and vorpal. These are largely DM dependant values and typically available only in very high level campains. So thier impact may or may not affect the overall balance from one game to the next.
Fargren 08-13-06, 09:47 AM	19-20/x2 and 20/x2 are statistically equivalent :rolleyes: Yeaaahhh, I reaaaly believe that... 19-20/x2=20/x3. It's absurd to think 19-20/x2=20/x2. Iwill give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you miss-typed it.
VonRichthofen 08-13-06, 10:01 AM	19-20/x2 and 20/x2 are statistically equivalent, as are 18-20/x2 and 20/x4. Statements like VonRichthofen's are worthless unless you back them up with facts, rather than mere guesses. Apart from your typo, I guess you didn't get it. Everybody sees that 19-20x2 and 20x3 are statistically the same. Nice you think yourself the only person capable of logic thought, but no, that won't do. My "I guess...." was to point out that it didn' matter overly wether you liked "less overkill/crits not as good against DR" or "more overkill/better against DR". @Nadaka: Your argument with the natural "20" kicks in once every 400 attacks, since you'll have to Confirm on a "20" as well. I'll let you have that one, but I already mentioned it earlier as well. Also, you didn't get the rules on keen or improved critical as it seems. Both of them double your threat range (not compatible) so as you just pointed out yourself: Damage increase remains the same. On the opposite: I couldn't tell of any core rules stuff that increases your threat range by 1. (OA possibly?). If that were the case more often in the game, I'd second your view, but since it isn't - sorry mate, your argument is flawed. So, we're back to what I said, and that is feats & enchantments. Since you didn't get my argument, I'll have to repeat it in detail. Telling Blow will let you do sneak attack damage on every critical hit ( as long as the target is vulnerable to it , of course). Double range=double sneak attack bonus damage statistically. Resounding Blow makes you intimidate your opponent on every crit, be your multiplier 2 or 200. So statistically, you intimidate twice as often to the same effect no matter your multiplier. Same goes for enchantments as Enfeebling, and that's a +1 enchantment, so please don't come around with that "it's only high-level game" -stuff. Once again, as I said: If you consider the whole game, crit range is better. If you leave out enchantments & feats, it comes to nigh the same effect, all your first-grade pseudo-mathematics won't change too much about it. A 0.25% chance to do triple instead of double damage on a critter hit only upon a natural "20", if that's your big argument, so be it. Please don't take any offense at what I said, but I don't like to have my arguments called "wrorthless" because I didn't point out the obvious.
Nadaka 08-13-06, 10:06 AM	DHO! I thought for shure that they changed keen/improved critical to +1 in the transition to 3.5? oh well. :confused:
Fargren 08-13-06, 10:35 AM	DHO! I thought for shure that they changed keen/improved critical to +1 in the transition to 3.5? oh well. :confused: It's a common house-rule.
Psychoticpsymon 08-13-06, 10:50 AM	1/20 chance of crit at X3. So in 100 battles, you will crit 5 times. 2/20 (1/10) chance of crit at 19-20/X2 So in 100 battles, you crit 10 times. Average axe does what, d12? Longsword does like a d8? Damage potential = ((highest roll / 2) * crit mult) crit chance ([12] * 3) * 5 = 180 ([8] * 2) * 10 = 160 I should look up those damage dice, but I think that the math is all obvious enough. Just change the bracketed numbers.\
Dragonteuthis 08-13-06, 10:53 AM	19-20/x2 and 20/x3 are statistically equivalent. 18-20/x2 and 20/x4 are also statistically equivalent. On average, the middle weapons (19-20/x2 and 20/x3) do more damage when damage modifiers are low than the other weapons. Once Improved Critical or keen is added, and the modifiers climb up, the extreme weapons begin to do more average damage. In fact, unless you must roll a very high natural number on the d20 to hit the monster, a longsword will equal a battleaxe in average damage, and a falchion will equal a scythe in average damage. Having to roll a natural number above the crit range to hit a foe will shift the odds slightly in favor of the larger multipliers. Larger multipliers also are more likely to trigger a save versus massive damage, at least when modifiers are low. If you're doing an average of 25+ damage with a x2 weapon, however, that comparison actually shifts in favor of the wide threat ranges, which are then twice as likely to threaten a massive damage save. There's also the choice of: Do you want to crit often, or do you want to crit big? Choice of enchantments on your weapon lends significant weight to this choice. It really boils down to personal preference. The CO people are technically right; mathematically a battleaxe is slightly better than a longsword at dealing damage. Luckily, the difference is so small that you won't be cheating yourself if you pick a longsword.
jaelis 08-13-06, 11:11 AM	It's pretty much a wash. If every number in your threat range is a hit, then the average damage is the same. If some of your threats miss, then a high crit multiplier is better. But a high crit multiplier is also more likely to "waste" damage, since sometimes you will crit against an opponent who only has 5 hp left anyway. If you push it to extremes, I'd rather have the high threat range. I'd prefer a 12-20/x2 weapon to a 20/x10 weapon, even though the average damage for the 12-20/x2 is probably lower (because you will often miss on a 12). But the reliability of the damage is more appealing to me.
Dragonteuthis 08-13-06, 11:18 AM	Average axe does what, d12? Longsword does like a d8? Damage potential = ((highest roll / 2) * crit mult) crit chance ([12] * 3) * 5 = 180 ([8] * 2) * 10 = 160 I should look up those damage dice, but I think that the math is all obvious enough. Just change the bracketed numbers.\ You clearly have no concept of statistics. Firstly, you are comparing the longsword to a greataxe, which is simply ridiculous. One-hander versus two-hander is simply a skewed view. As Churchill (and others) have said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Even if we adjust your numbers to battleaxe, your comparison isn't fair because you have the longsword hitting ten times and the battleaxe hitting only five. While it's true the battleaxe's greater damage mutliplier will help make up the difference, the base damage makes the longsword look better. The real way to calculate damage is to factor in the proportions of regular hits, ergo: ("a" equals the damage modifier, like from power attack, Strength, weapon enhcancement, specialization, etc. Figures are assuming all criticals confirm). Battleaxe: (4.5+a)0.95 + 3(4.5+a)0.05 = (4.5+a)0.95 + (4.5+a)0.15 Can be reduced to: 4.275 + 0.95a + 0.675 + 0.15a = 4.95 + 1.1a Longsword: (4.5+a)0.90 + 2(4.5+a)0.10 = (4.5+a)0.90 + (4.5+a)0.20 Can be reduced to: 4.05 + 0.90a + 0.90 +0.20a = 4.95 + 1.1a In which case you can see that AVERAGE damage is the same. Note that circumstances and weapon enhancements may shift favor towards one or the other. Please correct me if I've messed up these figures.
VonRichthofen 08-13-06, 11:35 AM	1/20 chance of crit at X3. So in 100 battles, you will crit 5 times. 2/20 (1/10) chance of crit at 19-20/X2 So in 100 battles, you crit 10 times. Average axe does what, d12? Longsword does like a d8? Damage potential = ((highest roll / 2) * crit mult) crit chance ([12] * 3) * 5 = 180 ([8] * 2) * 10 = 160 I should look up those damage dice, but I think that the math is all obvious enough. Just change the bracketed numbers.\ Now that's complete and utter nonsense, comparing longswords with greataxes.
Subedei 08-13-06, 11:42 AM	For the purposes of this discussion I'm really only considering 19-20x4 and 15-20x2. If you're concerned with criticals you shouldn't be using any other weapon (although I hear there's actually a 19-20x3 weapon out there somewhere...in official material). It's close, sure, but x4 does come out on top by a bit. 30% damage increase vs 25%. Add on things like Telling Blow and you certainly will come out in favor of high ranges so it really just depends on what your strategy is.
whoarewelivingfor 08-13-06, 11:49 AM	You can always get both... Use the Tiger Claw weapon of legacy from the new Tome of Battle. At 20th level: 15-20/x4
Dragonteuthis 08-13-06, 12:02 PM	It's close, sure, but x4 does come out on top by a bit. 30% damage increase vs 25%. Actually.... For simplicity sake, comparing Scythe versus Falchion. 19-20/x4: (5+a)0.90 + 4(5+a)0.10 = 6.5 + 1.3a 15-20/x2: (5+a)0.70 + 2(5+a)0.30 = 6.5 + 1.3a. Identical average damage. The only time a difference will appear is when the character has to roll a natural number of 16 or higher to hit the foe. In the hands of a character who does melee, this is quite rare, and typically when it does happen it is indicative of an very dangerous or overpowering encounter anyways, so this minor difference can be safely set aside. Note: Differences may occur depending on enhancements as well, such as the aforementioned "Telling Blow" feat.
jaelis 08-13-06, 12:03 PM	For the purposes of this discussion I'm really only considering 19-20x4 and 15-20x2. If you're concerned with criticals you shouldn't be using any other weapon (although I hear there's actually a 19-20x3 weapon out there somewhere...in official material). It's close, sure, but x4 does come out on top by a bit. 30% damage increase vs 25%. Add on things like Telling Blow and you certainly will come out in favor of high ranges so it really just depends on what your strategy is. Actually, both are +30%. The rapier does +100% damage 30% of the time, while the pick does +300% damage 10% of the time. A 19-20/x3 weapon boosted to 17-20/x3 does +200% damage 25% of the time, for a total of +50%.
VonRichthofen 08-13-06, 12:03 PM	You can always get both... Use the Tiger Claw weapon of legacy from the new Tome of Battle. At 20th level: 15-20/x4 And suffer -4 to fortitude saves, -2 to hit and -12hp? No thanx, I'll go for the Greathorn Minotaur Hammer with Improved Crit for a meager 17-20/x4 :D
VonRichthofen 08-13-06, 12:06 PM	It's close, sure, but x4 does come out on top by a bit. 30% damage increase vs 25%. Where on earth did you get the notion from that 15-20/x2 was only a 25% increase? It's exactly the same as 19-20/x4!
Psychoticpsymon 08-13-06, 01:01 PM	Now that's complete and utter nonsense, comparing longswords with greataxes. What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about DAMAGE, not type. I'm comparing dice and crit multipliers. In 100 rolls, a 1/20 chance (A 20 SIDED DIE) is represented by 1/20 no matter what number you choose. if there are 2 possible numbers, that becomes 2/20 or 1/10 when you reduce it. IN 100 ROLLS WITH A 1/10 CHANCE, YOU ROLL THE TWO TOP NUMBERS AN AVERAGE OF 10 TIMES IN 100 ROLLS. And the guy saying that I have no concept of statistics is a moron. Statistics is made complicated by people like you. The longsword and greataxe are subject to the exact same feats so it is useless to talk in those terms. We are dealing with some very simple numbers, and all of your bs can be condensced into nothing because both weapons benefit the same friggin way. The very simple numbers: There is a chance to roll a specific number. There is only one of that number, and there are 19 other numbers. Hence, a 1/20 chance. That is a *x modifier. Then there is the chance to roll 2 specific numbers. There is only 1 of each number (hence 2) and 18 other numbers. Hence, a 2/20 chance. That is for a ranged (19-20/*x) modifier. Now, you want to know which one is more useful. To determine this, you want the damage output. To figure out the damage output, we take the average of the damage die (which would mean the middle number) and multiplying that by the critical (to figure out how much damage ONE AVERAGE critical makes) and finally, finding out how often that damage will be applied. I skipped the divide by 2 stage because, for lack of a better word, it was worthless. So the process is: 1. Determine Relevant Information (Damage Y, Chance Z, Multiplier W) 2. Find Average Damage V (V = Y / 2) 3. Find Average Crit Damage U (U = V * W) 4. Find Average Crits T (T = 100 / Z OR T = Z * 5/5 [Multiply across, not directly]) 5. Find Total Damage (U * T) GREATAXE 1.d12 20 / X3 1/20 2. 12 / 2 = 6 3. 6 * 3 = 18 4. 1/20 * 5/5 = 5/100 5. 18 * 5 = 90 LONGSWORD 1.d8 19-20 / X2 2/10 (1/10) 2. 8 / 2 = 4 3. 4 * 2 = 8 4. 2/20 * 5/5 = 10/100 5. 8 * 10 = 80
savant_warlord13 08-13-06, 01:06 PM	I have several players who say that 20/x2 is the best critical range and multiplyer, because it allows for the most base damage. After all, you can't always score crits.
savant_warlord13 08-13-06, 01:08 PM	What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about DAMAGE, not type. I'm comparing dice and crit multipliers. In 100 rolls, a 1/20 chance (A 20 SIDED DIE) is represented by 1/20 no matter what number you choose. if there are 2 possible numbers, that becomes 2/20 or 1/10 when you reduce it. IN 100 ROLLS WITH A 1/10 CHANCE, YOU ROLL THE TWO TOP NUMBERS AN AVERAGE OF 10 TIMES IN 100 ROLLS. And the guy saying that I have no concept of statistics is a moron. Statistics is made complicated by people like you. The longsword and greataxe are subject to the exact same feats so it is useless to talk in those terms. We are dealing with some very simple numbers, and all of your bs can be condensced into nothing because both weapons benefit the same friggin way. The very simple numbers: There is a chance to roll a specific number. There is only one of that number, and there are 19 other numbers. Hence, a 1/20 chance. That is a *x modifier. Then there is the chance to roll 2 specific numbers. There is only 1 of each number (hence 2) and 18 other numbers. Hence, a 2/20 chance. That is for a ranged (19-20/*x) modifier. Now, you want to know which one is more useful. To determine this, you want the damage output. To figure out the damage output, we take the average of the damage die (which would mean the middle number) and multiplying that by the critical (to figure out how much damage ONE AVERAGE critical makes) and finally, finding out how often that damage will be applied. I skipped the divide by 2 stage because, for lack of a better word, it was worthless. So the process is: 1. Determine Relevant Information (Damage Y, Chance Z, Multiplier W) 2. Find Average Damage V (V = Y / 2) 3. Find Average Crit Damage U (U = V * W) 4. Find Average Crits T (T = 100 / Z OR T = Z * 5/5 [Multiply across, not directly]) 5. Find Total Damage (U * T) GREATAXE 1.d12 20 / X3 1/20 2. 12 / 2 = 6 3. 6 * 3 = 18 4. 1/20 * 5/5 = 5/100 5. 18 * 5 = 130 LONGSWORD 1.d8 19-20 / X2 2/10 (1/10) 2. 8 / 2 = 4 3. 4 * 2 = 8 4. 2/20 * 5/5 = 10/100 5. 8 * 10 = 80 This should have been done with a longsword and battleaxe, as they are both one-handed martial weapons with the same base damage.
Dragonteuthis 08-13-06, 01:26 PM	I'm not sure where to start. And the guy saying that I have no concept of statistics is a moron. Statistics is made complicated by people like you. I prefer the term "accurate" in place of "complicated" but unfortunately both adjectives apply to the field of statistics. The longsword and greataxe are subject to the exact same feats so it is useless to talk in those terms. We are dealing with some very simple numbers, and all of your bs can be condensced into nothing because both weapons benefit the same friggin way. Actually, they don't. A greataxe is a two-handed weapon, and thus gets much greater benefits from both Strength and Power Attack. A longsword doesn't get these benefits, so your starting comparison is strongly skewed in favor of the greataxe. Trust me, that's not "bs" it's right in the PHB. To determine this, you want the damage output. To figure out the damage output, we take the average of the damage die (which would mean the middle number)... See, this is where you're wrong, and this is what spawned my comment that you don't know statistics. The average of 1d12 is NOT 6, it's 6.5. In mathematical terms, the mean DOES NOT necessarily equal the median. Sometimes it does, but in this case it certainly does not. The formula you use to construct your argument are meaningless as well, since your units don't match up at all. Allow me to demonstrate. Firstly, you start by incorrectly calculating average damage, but we'll skip that and just use your numbers. That brings us to step #3. 6 damage * 3 (critical multiplier) = 18 damage. Step #4 is simply putting the critical chance into percentage form, a feat you performed correctly. Step #5 is where it gets odd. 18 damage * 5% = 130 what? Damage? Percent of damage? There's also the fact that 18 times 5 is actually NINETY, not 130, but given your problems finding the average, I think proper calculation would be expecting too much. Seriously, see if you can ask a math teacher or professor at school about this. Usually, they're more than happy to help you out on issues like these, though it depends on whether you have a good math teacher or a bad one. Given your figures here, I'm sadly inclined to think it's the latter, in which case perhaps you or your parents can seek tutoring or something.
Psychoticpsymon 08-13-06, 01:30 PM	Guy, do you read or just spout garbage? When I said at the beggining of what I wrote, "You roll 100 times. You have a 1/20 chance of rolling a twenty. Hence, in 100 rolls, you will crit 5 times." It isn't a percentage. It's a count of average crits. Edit: I'll grant you that I skipped the calc on the 130 damage thing and that was a mistake. I don't know where I got that from, but I gather that I multiplied 5 by eight and got 40, than thought somehow that there was a 90 in there. The correct number would be 90. (Well, there could be the problem. I got the total when I glanced at it, but went to double check the first column I added the 40 by mistake) Besides the fact, the end result is the same. We want to know which is better, and that has long since been proven.
Dragonteuthis 08-13-06, 01:34 PM	Guy, do you read or just spout garbage? When I said at the beggining of what I wrote, "You roll 100 times. You have a 1/20 chance of rolling a twenty. Hence, in 100 rolls, you will crit 5 times." It isn't a percentage. It's a count of average crits. I actually have a great time spouting garbage. All the neighborhood kids come by to watch, and sometimes I'm contracted to spout garbage at parties and business functions. It's quite a sight, and I'm told it's visible from space. In all seriousness, your statement of the average chance of rolling a twenty is not the subject of debate; that is correct. It is more elegantly stated as having a 5% chance of rolling a natural 20, but your statement is technically correct as well. But like I said, we're not questioning that fact. Besides the fact, the end result is the same. We want to know which is better, and that has long since been proven.If you mean greataxe versus longsword, that one's rather blindingly obvious. If you mean 20/x3 versus 19-20/x2, that once's also well proven: They lead to identical average damage in normal situations.
savant_warlord13 08-13-06, 01:59 PM	I will determine the balance With no strength modifier- Longsword-100 hits 10 critical hits at 9 damage each is 90 90 regular hits at 4.5 damage each is 405 damage 100 hits is 495 damage. Average damage is 4.95 Battleaxe- 100 hits 5 critical hits at 13.5 damage each is 67.5 damage 95 regular hits at 4.5 damage each is 427.5 damage 100 hits is 495 damage Average damage is 4.95 d10 damage weapon- 100 hits 5 critical hits at 11 damage each is 55 damage 95 regular hits at 5.5 damage each is 522.5 damage 100 hits is 577.5 damage Average damage is 5.775 However, I would like to try this with a strength bonus. I will use +5 as the strength damage. Longsword- 100 hits 10 critical hits at 19 damage each is 190 damage 90 regular hits at 9.5 damage each is 855 damage 100 hits is 1045 Average damage is 10.45 Battleaxe- 100 hits 5 critical hits at 28.5 damage each is 142.5 damage 95 regular hits at 9.5 damage each is 902.5 100 hits is 1045 damage Average damage is 10.45 d10 damage weapon- 100 hits 5 critical hits at 21 damage each is 105 damage 95 regular hits at 10.5 damage each is 997.5 damage 100 hits is 1102.5 damage Average damage is 11.025 Now I will do the same with a -2 strength penalty Longsword- 100 hits 10 critical hits at 5.75 damage each is 57.5 damage 90 regular hits at 2.875 damage each is 258.75 damage 100 hits is 316.25 damage Average damage is 3.1625 Battleaxe- 100 hits 5 critical hits at 8.625 damage each is 43.125 damage 95 regular hits at 2.875 damage each is 273.125 damage 100 hits is 316.25 damage Average damage is 3.1625 d10 damage weapon- 100 hits 5 critical hits at 7.6 damge each is 38 damage 95 regular hits at 3.8 damage each is 361 damage 100 hits is 399 damage Average damage is 3.99 It is evident that my players were correct, even without fighting oozes, constructs, elementals and undead.
VonRichthofen 08-13-06, 02:02 PM	Psych, your first example WAS crap, face it. And it may be called such. And trying to make believe that "counting crits" and "critical percentage" is a great difference and an other idea we are to stupid to understand is plain laughable. Insulting people, however, doesn't make your claims any better, so I suggest you remove yourself from board discussions until you learn proper and civilized behaviour.
savant_warlord13 08-13-06, 02:25 PM	1d8 19-20/x2 may equal 1d8 20/x3 in damage, but both are surpassed by 1d10 20/x2 There is a best critical multiplier, but it is neither of the ones suggest by the OP
savant_warlord13 08-13-06, 02:36 PM	I wonder is a theoretical 1d9 20/x2 weapon would be on par with longsword and battleaxe... I am tired of doing that stuff though. Someone please do it for me. And yes, you can have a 9-sided die. You take a die much like the ten sided one, but with 18 sides. Then you have two of each number from 1-9
Psychoticpsymon 08-13-06, 03:24 PM	Psych, your first example WAS crap, face it. And it may be called such. I fail to see why, mostly because you didn't actually say anything. And trying to make believe that "counting crits" and "critical percentage" is a great difference and an other idea we are to stupid to understand is plain laughable. And yet, I actually had to explain why i was multiplying by 5 rather than .05 Insulting people, however, doesn't make your claims any better, so I suggest you remove yourself from board discussions until you learn proper and civilized behaviour.I suggest you keep your head above your belt, my friend, and in the front of your body. I love how people on the boards get so high on themselves and make flash judgements whenever they get the chance. Its so refreshing to get such a reminder that people like you exist day-to-day.
Subedei 08-13-06, 03:45 PM	ROFL, I just realized I counted 15-20 range as 5 in 20 rather than 6 in 20! Don't know what I was thinking, oh well... Anyways Savant, you should redo your calculations with +15 damage from strength, +10 damage from power attack, +3 damage from enhancement bonus and +3 misc bonus to damage. 1dX+31 damage, I think that's a bit more realistic for a character of around 10th level I'd say, though probably a bit conservative. The difference between 1d8 and 1d10 is pretty insignificant, the majority of your damage should be bonus damage, not the weapon die.
Elessar 08-13-06, 03:54 PM	Could we keep the discussion clean, folks? I wanted a statistical analysis, not a schoolyard spat. Stick to the facts and be respectful to one another. Thanks :).
SlagMortar 08-13-06, 04:01 PM	1d8 19-20/x2 may equal 1d8 20/x3 in damage, but both are surpassed by 1d10 20/x2 This is only true if you do not have enough damage bonuses. Assuming a 50% chance to hit and no damage bonus: Average damage of 1d10 20/x2 = (chance to hit) * (average damage) + (percent to critical) * (chance to hit) * (average extra damage on critical) = 0.5 * 5.5 + 0.05 * 0.5 * 5.5 = 2.8875 Average damage of 1d8 19-20/x2 = 0.5 * 4.5 + 0.1 * 0.5 * 4.5 = 2.475 Advantage 1d10 20/x2. However, if you have +20 damage bonus from strength, magic, power attack, weapon specialization, bardic music, or whatever Average damage of 1d10+20 20/x2 = 0.5 * 25.5 + 0.05 * 0.5 * 25.5 = 13.3875 Average damage of 1d8+20 19-20/x2 = 0.5 * 24.5 + 0.1 * 0.5 * 24.5 = 13.475 Advantage 1d8 19-20/x2 Now add keen or improved critical to both weapons: Average damage of 1d10+20 19-20/x2 = 0.5 * 25.5 + 0.1 * 0.5 * 25.5 = 14.025 Average damage of 1d8+20 17-20/x2 = 0.5 * 24.5 + 0.2 * 0.5 * 24.5 = 14.7 It is not uncommon to have at least a +20 damage at not particularly high levels.
SlagMortar 08-13-06, 04:03 PM	ROFL, I just realized I counted 15-20 range as 5 in 20 rather than 6 in 20! Nope, 15-20 is 6 in 20. 18-20 is 3. Double that to get 15-20 is 6.
Subedei 08-13-06, 04:05 PM	It is pretty obvious, isn't it?
Esponer 08-13-06, 05:56 PM	Higher multipliers are always superior, because they're more fun. …What?
savant_warlord13 08-13-06, 06:16 PM	ROFL, I just realized I counted 15-20 range as 5 in 20 rather than 6 in 20! Don't know what I was thinking, oh well... Anyways Savant, you should redo your calculations with +15 damage from strength, +10 damage from power attack, +3 damage from enhancement bonus and +3 misc bonus to damage. 1dX+31 damage, I think that's a bit more realistic for a character of around 10th level I'd say, though probably a bit conservative. The difference between 1d8 and 1d10 is pretty insignificant, the majority of your damage should be bonus damage, not the weapon die. The point was to show that a damage bonus does not effect which is better. It does not matter how high that bonus is.
savant_warlord13 08-13-06, 06:18 PM	This is only true if you do not have enough damage bonuses. Assuming a 50% chance to hit and no damage bonus: Average damage of 1d10 20/x2 = (chance to hit) * (average damage) + (percent to critical) * (chance to hit) * (average extra damage on critical) = 0.5 * 5.5 + 0.05 * 0.5 * 5.5 = 2.8875 Average damage of 1d8 19-20/x2 = 0.5 * 4.5 + 0.1 * 0.5 * 4.5 = 2.475 Advantage 1d10 20/x2. However, if you have +20 damage bonus from strength, magic, power attack, weapon specialization, bardic music, or whatever Average damage of 1d10+20 20/x2 = 0.5 * 25.5 + 0.05 * 0.5 * 25.5 = 13.3875 Average damage of 1d8+20 19-20/x2 = 0.5 * 24.5 + 0.1 * 0.5 * 24.5 = 13.475 Advantage 1d8 19-20/x2 Now add keen or improved critical to both weapons: Average damage of 1d10+20 19-20/x2 = 0.5 * 25.5 + 0.1 * 0.5 * 25.5 = 14.025 Average damage of 1d8+20 17-20/x2 = 0.5 * 24.5 + 0.2 * 0.5 * 24.5 = 14.7 No, I already showed this to be wrong.
Elessar 08-13-06, 08:13 PM	Well, I have to thank savant, because I think his formula helped me to understand this problem. SlagMortar, I think you're right that 1d8 19-20/x2 (longsword) and 1d8 x3 (battleaxe) do more damage than a 1d10 x2 (greatclub), but I'm not quite sure where you're getting those equations. I'm pretty sure savant's formula works, so I plugged the numbers into it: Longsword- 100 hits (+20 damage) 10 critical hits at 49 damage each is 490 damage 90 regular hits at 24.5 damage each is 2205 damage 100 hits is 2695. Average damage is 26.95. Battleaxe- 100 hits (+20 damage) 5 critical hits at 73.5 damage each is 367.5 damage 95 regular hits at 24.5 damage each is 2327.5 damage 100 hits is 2695. Average damage is 26.95. Greatclub (+20 damage) 5 critical hits at 51 damage each is 255 damage. 95 regular hits at 25.5 damage each is 2422.5 damage. 100 hits is 2677.5. Average damage is 26.775. However, remember that a greatclub in the hands of a fighter who does +20 damage with a longsword will usually have a greater bonus to damage since he's using the greatclub in two hands. I suppose he could be using the longsword in two hands too, though, at the expense of AC.
SlagMortar 08-13-06, 11:50 PM	No, I already showed this to be wrong. Then point out my math error. You did the calculation with a strength bonus, but not a high enough bonus to swing it in favor of the higher crit range. Look at your numbers more closely. The damage difference with no strength bonus 0.825 damage, while the difference with a +5 strength bonus is only 0.575. This does not prove that I am correct, but it does suggest that you should try another higher strength bonus to see if that does effect it. You can see Elessar calculation that a +20 damage bonus is in favor of the larger threat range and smaller die. Here's the equation: (chance to hit) * (average damage) + (percent to critical) * (chance to hit) * (average extra damage on critical) The first part of the sum represents the average damage per attack ignoring criticals. The second part of the sum represents the chance of a critical and the extra damage from the critical. The normal damage part of the critical is already counted in the first part of the sum so only extra damage from the critical is included on the second. Basically, you did the same calculation a little differently, and did not take the to-hit chance into account. That's fine because to-hit chance does not effect which does more damage unless part of the critical threat range is a miss. You will notice that your numbers are exactly double mine because I assumed a 50% hit chance. I'm glad Savant's explaination served you well.
shmeck 08-14-06, 01:40 AM	Originally Posted by Elessar Individual monsters generally don't ever make criticals against the PCs, since most of them die. Therefore, the PCs don't really need to have all that many criticals unless their DM regularly pits them against overwhelming opponents. Elessar, if I understand this correctly, you may be working from a false assumption. You seem to feel that Monsters (NPCs) score fewer criticals than PC's, overall. Actually, PCs always receive more criticals than they can ever hope to dish out. That's because NPCs simply get more attack opportunities than PCs, because there's way more of them. DMG, p.26 The PCs, over the course of a single game session, let alone campaign, are subject to many more attack rolls than any given NPC. Upping the frequency of criticals by broadening the number range in front of the slash increases randomness in the game (it becomes easier to swing the tide of battle on a single roll). As described in the ELH (p.110) and the DMG, increased randomness always favors the NPCs in the long haul. So before tweaking Crits, you need to decide if you want to favor the PCs or the NPCs. If you want to favor the PCs, then reduce the frequency of Crits. After all, they're jumping in front of way more busses than the NPCs are.
DoomSquirrel718 08-14-06, 05:52 AM	I'm probably waxing the obvious again, but in my opinion the advantage lies in how you use the abilities. HIGHER THREAT RANGE Multiply your chances of making criticals by getting as many attacks as possible Using the 3.5 DMG's encounter difficulty types pg.49 In my campaigns the players can hit anything in a challenging encounter (50% of the total) with a roll of 15 HIGHER MULTIPLIER Ensure your chances of using the multiplied damage by paralyzing your enemy I almost TPK'd my party with a cleric of nerull who used hold person so he could coup de grace them with his scythe :shifty:
Psychoticpsymon 08-14-06, 08:34 AM	I was under the impression that we were figuring what was better: crit range or crit multiplier. Was this supposed to be about damage in general or what?
VonRichthofen 08-14-06, 09:33 AM	I was under the impression that we were figuring what was better: crit range or crit multiplier. Was this supposed to be about damage in general or what? You're still there, Psych? :D
Psychoticpsymon 08-14-06, 10:03 AM	Yeap, bored at college. Stupid girlfriend, making me come in hours early to bring her out to hers. Sigh. At least I finally got some homework done early :cool:
savant_warlord13 08-14-06, 10:33 AM	Then point out my math error. You did the calculation with a strength bonus, but not a high enough bonus to swing it in favor of the higher crit range. Look at your numbers more closely. The damage difference with no strength bonus 0.825 damage, while the difference with a +5 strength bonus is only 0.575. This does not prove that I am correct, but it does suggest that you should try another higher strength bonus to see if that does effect it. You can see Elessar calculation that a +20 damage bonus is in favor of the larger threat range and smaller die. Here's the equation: The first part of the sum represents the average damage per attack ignoring criticals. The second part of the sum represents the chance of a critical and the extra damage from the critical. The normal damage part of the critical is already counted in the first part of the sum so only extra damage from the critical is included on the second. Basically, you did the same calculation a little differently, and did not take the to-hit chance into account. That's fine because to-hit chance does not effect which does more damage unless part of the critical threat range is a miss. You will notice that your numbers are exactly double mine because I assumed a 50% hit chance. I'm glad Savant's explaination served you well. I did not notice that the difference changed.
Sphyre 08-14-06, 11:22 AM	as has been noted, for the most part the crit ranges and crit multipliers are stastically the same when it comes to mean damage. The values that you want to look at is the impact on the game. If your targets have low hit point totals, a higher crit range will be more beneficial. This is because a crit will cause the target's death sooner without much over-kill or "wasted crit multiplier" If your targets have higher life point totals, a higher crit multiplier well cause a bigger chunk if you crit, but you'll crit more often with the lesser one. This can be esspecially useful if you're fighting something with DR, or faster healing, as bigger chunks of damage result in a higher damage per round on a small scale. To illustrate the concepts, my duskblade that I've been playing first weilded a falchion (18-20/x2) He crit often, and whenever he crit, he killed his targets. These targets had low life, so critting more often meant he did more damage. If I attacked with a 20/x4 weapon, that extra multiplier wouldn't matter because the target would be dead anyway. and i'd be critting less, resulting in less damage that makes a combat difference. Now I faced the BBEG at the end of the dungeon and i had found a MW scythe. Now since all I could tell the BBEG had was DR and fast healing but i didn't know his stats so I'll have to make things up here. Now lets say it would take me 3 hits to kill him. If i crit on the first attack. I would kill him outright. If i crit with the falchion, every attack, it may take 2-3 hits to kill him depending on how high the DR and fast healing are. it's easy to tell, that you're probably not going to crit every single time, but would you like a 5% chance to kill the target any given round, or a 0% chance to kill the target, and then a possibly now a 15% chance to kill it (or still a 0 if it would live) and then another 15% chance to kill it? Now if you take the figure that you do 20 damage per round consistently, one with a 15% crit rate and x2, and other at 5% and 4x, and your enemy has 2000 life, 5 dr, and 5 fast healing. I did a little fun test in excel with this, and both weapons kill the boss on the 152nd turn. They do the same damage over time, but which one is better depends on the hp of the opponent. Let your damage be X Let your the Monster HP be H if H <= X, use either, it doesn't matter which you use. if X < H <= 2X, use the higher crit range if 2X < H <= 4X, use the higher crit multiplier if H > 4x, use either, it doesn't matter which you use Sorry for the post being kind of scatter brained, as i haven't much sleep lately. Things get a little bit more complicated when you do things like add iterative attacks, but I would think that X can be your damage per hit or damage per round, it doesn't matter... but i'm a little to fuzzy headed right now to think about that... i'll be back when i've had sleep :P
TheDragonmaster 08-14-06, 02:21 PM	This is probably a bit off-topic, but i apologize for this thread hijack (irony, sweet irony). The math done at the CO boards is correct... in the most cases, average damage is better using a high crit multiplier weapon... but listen to this before you choose your weapons... I DO KNOW that higher crit multipliers are better, but I still use the high crit range weapons out of two reasons... First, no high crit multiplier weapon is cool (spears, axes, picks, scythes). All high crit range weapons are cool (swords and other blades, mostly). This is, of course, just my opinion. Second (and I hope this is not only my opinion), it is fun to confirm a critical threat, to pick up the extra dice, to roll them, to look at the big numbers, and to hear the DM speak of the terrible wounds you righteously inflicted on your vile foe. With a higher threat range, you do this more often. It is more fun to crit often than to crit less often, but it seldom makes any difference (measured in fun) whether you deal a lot of damage or an EXTREME SUPERHUGE LOT of damage. This makes no difference to most of the posts on the CO boards, but it makes a lot of difference to my characters and my style of play...
Tarsam_di_Caela 08-14-06, 05:11 PM	So I got plenty of free time, and I decided to take a look on the numerics. First the weapons statistics: Longsword 15 gp 1d6 1d8 19-20/×2 — 4 lb. Slashing Battleaxe 10 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 — 6 lb. Slashing Then, we all should agree that the result of an attack roll is a number between 1 and 20 (natural roll). The probability of obtaining a specific number (no matter which one) is 1/20 = 0.05, i.e. 5%, (if not, that means you are cheating). But which is the probability of hitting? First, a natural 1 is always a miss (no good). Second, a natural 20 is always a hit (let's take care of the criticals later). For the rest (2-19), we should compare the AC with the modified attack roll. The probability of hitting [p(h)] is: 1) if (AC - At. Mod.) is equal or lower than 1: p(h) = 0.95 (95 %) 2) if (AC - At. Mod.) is equal or greater than 20: p(h) = 0.05 ( 5 %) 3) if (AC - At. Mod.) is between 2 and 19: p(h) = 1 - (AC - At. Mod. - 1) / 20 Where At. Mod. is the Attack Modifier (BAB+ Size Modifier +...) Some examples: At. Mod At. Mod At. Mod 0 5 10 AC = 10 55% 80% 95% AC = 15 30% 55% 80% AC = 20 05% 30% 55% We should compare the total amount of damage delivered by each type of weapon. Not only when we score threats. Regardless of the weapon in any attack we may or not score a critical threat. The probability of scoring a threat is related to the critical range of the weapon and is 0.10 (10%) for the longsword and 0.05 (5%) for the battleaxe. The rest of the rolls won't be criticals but they may, if high enough, still deliver damage. Statiscally the average damage delivered by the longsword (dmg-ls) is: dmg-ls = p(20) * [ dmg + p(h) * dmg ] + p(19) * [ p(h/19) * dmg + p(h) * dmg ] + + p(2-18) * p(h/2-18) * dmg And for the battleaxe (dmg-ba): dmg-ba = p(20) * [ dmg + p(h) * 2 * dmg ] + p(2-19) * p (h/2-19) * dmg Where: a) p(20) is the probability of rolling a natural 20 -> p(20) = 0.05 (5%). b) p(19) is the probability of rolling a natural 19 -> p(19) = 0.05 (5%). c) p(h/19) is the probability of hitting if a natural 19 is rolled. d) p(2-18) is the probability of rolling a number between (inclusive) 2 and 18 -> p(2-18) = 0.85 (85%). e) p(h/2-18) is the probability of hitting if only numbers between (inclusive) 2 and an 18 may be rolled. f) p(2-19) is the probability of rolling a number between (inclusive) 2 and 19 -> p(2-19) = 0.90 (90%). g) p(h/2-19) is the probability of hitting if only numbers between (inclusive) 2 and an 19 may be rolled. h) dmg is the average dmg delivered in a damage roll, which is the same for both weapons and equal to 4.5 (1d8) assuming there aren't any damage modifiers. I have calculated these average damages for different ACs (from 10 to 30) and At. Mods. (from +0 to +20) and I can assure you that: 1) For low ACs (regardless of the At. Mod.) both weapons deliver statiscally the same damage. 2) For high ACs (above 20) the battleaxe is slightly better, but only for low At. Mods. This can be easily explained with the following example. We take AC=20 and At. Mod.=0, so we need to roll a natural 20 to impact, which may be in addition a critical hit if we roll again a natural 20. If we get lucky and score the critical hit, the battleaxe delivers more damage. Now, if we roll a 19 (first roll) we won't hit, and therefore we can not deliver a critical. So the extra range of the sword is useless in this case. The statistical conclusion is that the axe is slightly better, but I would say: a) The longsword is a better option at low levels, when enemies have not so many hit points b) The battleaxe is better against enemies with DR and is from the mathematic point of view slightly better. I hope this long, long post has helped.
Varrik 08-14-06, 05:27 PM	Column Order: (1)Crit Range, (2)Threat Chance, (3)Crit. Confirm Chance vs stated AC assuming 18 Str and +5 BAB, (i.e. what you need on a d20, if you have +9 to hit: AC 15, requires 6-20 or 75% chance) (4)Avg Damage (d6), (5)Crit. Multiplier, (6) Crit Chance (2x3), (7) Crit. Damage(4x5+Str x 5)(one-handed weapon), (8) Tot. Damage by chance (6x7) AC 15 20 0.05 0.75 3.5 4 0.0375 30 1.125 19-20 0.1 0.75 3.5 3 0.075 22.5 1.6875 18-20 0.15 0.75 3.5 2 0.1125 15 1.6875 AC 20 20 0.05 0.5 3.5 4 0.025 30 0.75 19-20 0.1 0.5 3.5 3 0.05 22.5 1.125 18-20 0.15 0.5 3.5 2 0.075 15 1.125 AC 25 20 0.05 0.25 3.5 4 0.0125 30 0.375 19-20 0.1 0.25 3.5 3 0.025 22.5 0.5625 18-20 0.15 0.25 3.5 2 0.0375 15 0.5625 AC 30 20 0.05 0.05 3.5 4 0.0025 30 0.075 19-20 0.1 0.05 3.5 3 0.005 22.5 0.1125 18-20 0.15 0.05 3.5 2 0.0075 15 0.1125 Assumption (+5 BAB, +4 Str) I think in tables, so rigged up the above table versus various AC's. Obviously, things change as you play with the assumptions, but I think my assumptions are reasonable. I find this discussion impossible to reason with out adding in confirmation of criticals. Interestingly enough, I found that a nat. 20 must have a critical muliplier of x6 in order to equal the damage output of 19-20 or 18-20 even with their lower multipliers. Try it!
Tarsam_di_Caela 08-14-06, 06:02 PM	I think in tables, so rigged up the above table versus various AC's. Obviously, things change as you play with the assumptions, but I think my assumptions are reasonable. I find this discussion impossible to reason with out adding in confirmation of criticals. Interestingly enough, I found that a nat. 20 must have a critical muliplier of x6 in order to equal the damage output of 19-20 or 18-20 even with their lower multipliers. Try it! You do not take into account the damage, when no criticals threads are rolled. This is bigger for the high-multiplier weapons and compensates exactly the diferences you have calculated.
Duncs 08-14-06, 06:26 PM	Essentially, statistically with no contributing factors theyre the same, as SO many people have said. What it boils down to, i think, is this (sorry if its been said i read the first page of replies and ignored the rest :P): If you use feats that proc on criticals, then obviously more criticals = better, as the effects are not affected by the multiplier. If you face enemies with an arbitrary reduction in damage per hit, such as from damage reduction, you want fewer, bigger hits. Therefore, it depends on what you are fighting and what feats you have
Varrik 08-15-06, 10:34 AM	AC 25 threat confirm avg dmg multip crit.hit crit.dam dmg output B.axe/W.hammer 0.05 0.25 4.5 3 0.0125 17 0.2125 Longsword 0.1 0.25 4.5 2 0.025 8.5 0.2125 Pick, Heavy 0.05 0.25 3.5 4 0.0125 22.5 0.28125 Rapier/Scimitar 0.15 0.25 3.5 2 0.0375 7.5 0.28125 Flail/Trident 0.05 0.25 4.5 2 0.0125 8.5 0.10625 Falchion 0.15 0.25 5 2 0.0375 11 0.4125 Glaive 0.05 0.25 5.5 3 0.0125 23 0.2875 Greataxe 0.05 0.25 6.5 3 0.0125 25 0.3125 Greatclub 0.05 0.25 5.5 2 0.0125 11.5 0.14375 Flail, heavy 0.1 0.25 5.5 2 0.025 11.5 0.2875 Greatsword 0.1 0.25 7 2 0.025 13 0.325 Guisarme4 0.05 0.25 5 3 0.0125 22 0.275 Halberd 0.05 0.25 5.5 3 0.0125 23 0.2875 Lance4 0.05 0.25 4.5 3 0.0125 21 0.2625 Ranseur4 0.05 0.25 5 3 0.0125 22 0.275 Scythe 0.05 0.25 5 4 0.0125 33 0.4125 Ok, Same Scenario, but I removed the non-critical damage as suggested. And looked at D&D weapons as listed. (not Exotic) Same 5th level fighter with the same 18 Strength. You'll notice that mechanically the Greatclub is seriously inferior. For top honors, Scythe, Falchion are the best, closely followed by Greatsword, then Greataxe. For one-handed weapons the Flail and Trident don't do much crit damage, but the Flail gives you +2 to disarm and can trip, and the Trident can be thrown. The Greatclub does none of that for two-handers. I wonder if this is why Giants always seem to be running around with Greatclubs. Oooo, an army of Scythe wielding Storm Giants. lol. Sorry, it's just fun to play around with Excel. :D Gawd, that's sad. :(
Elessar 08-15-06, 11:12 AM	Good table, Varrik. Thanks. So essentially, the scythe is even better than indicated, since , unlike the Falchion, it does two types of damage, can make trip attacks, and costs a bit less at low levels.
LordPendragon 08-15-06, 11:47 AM	I appreciate all the math going on in this thread, but there's something that you fine posters have neglected to notice. DR has no effect whatsoever on the effectiveness of a crit multiplier. Under the assumption that any Fighter worth his salt is going to have a high enough damage output that he always penetrates DR (at least a little), then the exact same amount of damage is subtracted from every attack, regardless of how much is actually done. Whether the attacker adds his regular damage on top of the overflow 10% of the time, or double his damage on top 5% of the time, it's still a 10% damage increase overall. The only time that DR is actually applicable in these debates is if the attacker has a reasonable chance of doing so little damage that he can't penetrate DR on a regular attack.
Duncs 08-15-06, 11:54 AM	A while back i did a big table in excell. Will upload it. Compared weapons at 10 str and 34 str (at 34str the strength has made the difference it will - more strength just increases the highest ones more, widens the gap.) Lets see if i can find it... Bah - got it but cant upload it. Anyone able to host a small excell file for me? [EDIT: DR is applicable to any individual crit (a x4 is affected less than a x2) but yes, you are right. If we are working on 20 attacks, say, then the DR will be the same. Good thinking batman!]