I haven't...
But it might be an interesting exercise....
I might try to work something up if no one already has something.
I've given considerable thought to writing a quick-and-dirty C++ program that does this. I havn't yet, but who knows when I'll get bored and decide to do it...
Hmmm,
If one was to break them down... I'm thinking something like this?
Base Score : 3 times the average damage of the weapon.
Crit Range : +5% per increase in Crit Range (IE: +5% for 19-20, +10% for 18-20, etc)
Crit Multi : +10% per additional Multiplier
Reach : +5% for reach (reach has tradeoffs, since you can't use it up close)
Omni Weapon : +10% if the weapon can be used both ranged and melee
Range Inc : For a ranged weapon, divide the base range by 60 ft. Add or subtract 5% for each 0.20 above or below 1 (A dagger with 30ft is 0.50 so subtract 10% from the ranged value of the weapon due to short range. A composite longbow is 110ft, which would be 1.4 so add 10% for a longbow.).
Trip : +10% if the weapon can be used as a trip weapon.
Double Weapon : +50% if the weapon can be used as a double weapon.
Exotic : -15% if the weapon requires an exotic proficiency (normally).
Martial : -5% if the weapon requires a martial weapon proficiency.
I don't think handedness should affect it, those kind of balance out. 2 Handed getting 1.5 str, 1 handed getting 1xstr and light/off handed getting 1/2 str.
Any feedback before I try to calculate everything? I picked 3x average damage to help more easily differentiate the weapons (it expands the range of results over a larger area and magnifies small differences). If the #'s start coming out close I might suggest starting at 5x average damage.
Any feedback before I try to calculate everything?
My only feedback is that the handedness should matter some how. A single weapon that can be used with itself for two-weapon fighting has at least a little benefit (feat sharing). Maybe the same value as Double Weapon?
Other than that, if you go with the values as listed, I predict 75% or more of the weapons end up with a value of 12 or less. (EDITed to correct value for multiplication.)
Any feedback before I try to calculate everything?My only feedback is that the handedness should matter some how. A single weapon that can be used with itself for two-weapon fighting has at least a little benefit (feat sharing). Maybe the same value as Double Weapon?
Other than that, if you go with the values as listed, I predict 75% or more of the weapons end up with a value of 12 or less. (EDITed to correct value for multiplication.)
Hmmm,
Good point. Perhaps I should start with 10 times the base damage to start with. I do want the numbers to be bigger.
Hmmm, Ok, not one-handed weapons as a bonus then, but perhaps a +10% to weapons that can be used in the off hand (to represent the bonus for two-weapon fighting).
Ok,
Here's what I did....
Multiply the Average Damage of the weapon by 10.
Multiply by 1 plus the following modifiers :
Crit Range : 19=+5%, 18=+10%
Crit Multiplier : x3=+5%, x3.5=+7.5%, x4=+10%
Reach : +5% if a reach weapon
Throwable Melee Weapon : +10% if the weapon can be thrown
Trip : +5% if the weapon has Trip ability
Disarm : +5% if the weapon has Disarm ability
Brace : +5% if the weapon has Brace ability
Monk : +5% if the weapon is a Monk weapon
Multiple Damage : +5% if the weapon has choosable damage, +10% if it does two types of damage simultaneously
Off-Hand : +10% if the weapon can be used in an off-hand
Martial : -5% if the weapon requires a martial proficiency to use
Exotic : -15% if the weapon requires an exotic proficiency to use
Double : +50% if the weapon is a double weapon
You may be wondering how you can get a 3.5 crit multiplier. Well, one of the weapons has a x3/x4 (gnome hooked hammer, I'm looking at you!) so I averaged the two so it fit in my formula nicely. Same thing with double weapons that did 2 different sized damages depending on end, averaged the average damage (again, gnome hooked hammer I'm looking at you with your overall average of 4).
Unsurprisingly, the whip came out as the worst weapon in the bunch, and the greatsword came out as the best weapon in the bunch. That makes me feel like the numbers are about right. Any feedback on them would be appreciated. I will try to work up the ranged weapons this week, after any feedback on the melee ones.
Gauntlet 22.00
Dagger 27.50
Dagger, punching 26.25
Gauntlet, spiked 25.00
Mace, light 35.00
Sickle 36.75
Club 35.00
Mace, heavy 45.00
Morningstar 49.50
Shortspear 45.00
Longspear 51.75
Quarterstaff 54.25
Spear 49.50
Axe, throwing 40.25
Hammer, light 28.75
Handaxe 38.50
Kukri 28.75
Pick, light 28.75
Sap 36.75
Starknife 30.00
Sword, short 38.50
Battleaxe 45.00
Flail 47.25
Longsword 45.00
Pick, heavy 36.75
Rapier 36.75
Scimitar 36.75
Trident 49.50
Warhammer 45.00
Falchion 52.50
Glaive 57.75
Greataxe 65.00
Greatclub 52.25
Flail, heavy 60.50
Greatsword 70.00
Guisarme 55.00
Halberd 63.25
Lance 47.25
Ranseur 55.00
Scythe 57.50
Kama 36.75
Nunchaku 36.75
Sai 26.25
Siangham 35.00
Sword, bastard 49.50
Waraxe, dwarven 49.50
Whip 20.00
Axe, orc double 63.00
Chain, spiked 47.50
Curve blade, elven 52.25
Flail, dire 65.25
Hammer, gnome hooked 61.00
Sword, two-bladed 63.00
Urgrosh, dwarven 60.00
I personally believe that the '+50% for Double Weapons' led to some unbalance in your statistics. That a Quarterstaff is a decent weapon is one thing (easy to use, can be wielded Two-Handed or as One-Handed+Light, etc.); that is superior to a Longsword, or even a Falchion, I find it... overvalued.
After all, a Double-Weapon used as a Two-Handed weapon is, basically, a 'basic' weapon used with two hands (Quarterstaff= Club, Two-Bladed Sword= Longsword), and if used as two separate weapons it still needs the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (and all others) to be decent... I hardly suspect any Wizard could afford to 'Two-Weapon wield' his Quarterstaff with a -4/-4 to hit, for example (and even to afford the various Two-Weapon Fighting feats to use it decently)...
Other than Double Weapons, however, your statistics seems fairly balanced. One thing I would add, though (I know, the formula would start to become wonky) is a bonus for weapons with a good hardness/hp . A Morningstar is fairly superior to a Heavy Mace, this is true - until somebody tries to Sunder both of them. In that case, a full-metal Heavy Mace is a superior weapon without any doubts (MorningStar - One Handed hafted weapon: Base Hardness 5, Base hp 5; Heavy Mace - One Handed metal-hafted weapon: Base Hardness 10, Base hp 20).
Just my 2c.
I personally believe that the '+50% for Double Weapons' led to some unbalance in your statistics. That a Quarterstaff is a decent weapon is one thing (easy to use, can be wielded Two-Handed or as One-Handed+Light, etc.); that is superior to a Longsword, or even a Falchion, I find it... overvalued.
Well, this is a first swag at it, so I'm happy to change it. I think the double weapon still needs to have a good boost on it, as it gives flexibility that a single-hand weapon doesn't give. Perhaps a 25% boost instead of 50%.
Other than Double Weapons, however, your statistics seems fairly balanced. One thing I would add, though (I know, the formula would start to become wonky) is a bonus for weapons with a good hardness/hp . A Morningstar is fairly superior to a Heavy Mace, this is true - until somebody tries to Sunder both of them. In that case, a full-metal Heavy Mace is a superior weapon without any doubts (MorningStar - One Handed hafted weapon: Base Hardness 5, Base hp 5; Heavy Mace - One Handed metal-hafted weapon: Base Hardness 10, Base hp 20).Just my 2c.
Yeah, the hardness/hp would make it pretty wonky, but I'll see what I can come up with. Maybe something like I decided for Ranged Weapons, where I assume 60 feet is 'average' and add or subtract 5% per 25% above or below that range.
Hmmm, perhaps a 5% bonus to full metal weapons, to reflect the higher hardness/hps.
Too high a focus on damage die when most people probably agree that a melee specialist gets more damage from stats, feats and magical plusses than from the die. The average difference between a d6 and a d8 is 1 point of damage, yet a high strength character will over time deal much more damage swinging a scimitar than a longsword.
Stupid board ate my post, took me 30 minutes to write it up. :(
Basically, I'm not comparing builds. There's plenty of threads comparing builds. This is strictly an analysis of the weapons themselves, not specific builds. All comparisons between weapons are assuming a fictional character with 10's in all stats, who's 1st level with no BAB and no combat feats of any kind.
Yet, Longsword scores 45.00, while Rapier and Scimitar only score 36.75.And a halberd is, at least in my opion, better than a greatax, yet they score 63.25 and 65...ok, close, but the halberd should come out on top, as the average damage difference is again only 1, but the halberd can do tricks.
I already think there is a kind of in-built system for weapons. A Longsword, for instance, is a 1-hnd, martial weapon dealing 1d8, crit 19-20/x2. If you want to change that, you either have to balance it (scimitar deals only 1d6, but crits on 18+, battleaxe deals same damage, but changes crit to 20/x3) or make it an exotic weapon (bastard sword is essentially the same weapon, just exotic and with 1d10 damage). Likewise, you can go downward (shortsword is a light martial weapon, thus dealing only 1d6, but same crit). There are probably a few weapons that don't follow these "rules", but if you wanted to make a brand new weapon, using this as a guideline would not result in too much overpowered weapons.
A longsword is better than a rapier or scimitar, statistically.
Again, assume our amorphous blob with all 10's in stats, no feats, and he picks up each weapon in turn and tries to hit another amorphous blob with an 11 AC.
He has a 50% chance to hit each swing (d20 11+)
Longsword : 4.5 (base damage) * 0.50 (chance to hit) + 4.5 (base damage) * 2 (crit multiplier) * 0.05 (chance to actually crit)
Scimitar : 3.5 (base damage) * 0.50 (chance to hit) + 3.5 (base damage) * 3 (crit multiplier) * 0.075 (chance to actually crit)
By chance to actually crit, I mean the following. A longsword has a 10% chance to threaten a crit (19-20/20, 10%), but only a 50% chance to confirm the crit (11+) so the chance to actually crit is 0.1 * 0.5 = 0.05, or 5%
Longsword : 4.5*0.5 + 4.5*2*0.05 = 2.25 + 0.45 = 2.7
Scimitar : 3.5*0.5 + 3.5*3*0.075 = 1.75 + 0.7875 = 2.54
So, a longsword is statistically better over time, if all other things are equal. After 100 swings, our blob would have done 270hp with the longsword, and only 254hp with the scimitar. This gives the longsword a slight edge. Same applies for the rapier.
Don't forget to add in a bonus if the weapon can be used to deal more than one type of damage. The Halberd is a superior choice over the Greataxe to me, simply because the axe only does slashing damage, while the halberd can do either slashing or piercing. Every now and again stuff like that matters. Add in doing tricks with on and not with the other, and the halberd should clearly be ahead.
While they don't exist in pathfinder yet, any weapon that ha one of these "combat style feats" attached to it would come out even further ahead in 3.5 rules. Weapons such as the halberd, light mace, and others had even more benefit if you had the right build.
Yep, I did. If you look it's 5% if the weapon can do A or B damage, and 10% if it can do A and B damage simultaneously (morningstar is the only one that does piercing and bludgeoning simultaneously).
The halberd got a boost, but it greataxe, if I remember correctly (not looking at my notes) had a higher crit multiplier, which gave it a slight edge when combined with the lower damage die of the halbard.
As to specific builds, I agree, a specific build specializing in Gauntlets or Whips can be nasty, despite them both being the bottom of the bucket statistically. But, I can't possibly account for every possible build and stat combination and feat selection and racial makeup. So, all statistics for the weapons assume a uniform blob is wielding them, sans armor, with no skills, and all stats = 10 and no feats. :)
Don't forget to add in a bonus if the weapon can be used to deal more than one type of damage. The Halberd is a superior choice over the Greataxe to me, simply because the axe only does slashing damage, while the halberd can do either slashing or piercing. Every now and again stuff like that matters. Add in doing tricks with on and not with the other, and the halberd should clearly be ahead.
While they don't exist in pathfinder yet, any weapon that ha one of these "combat style feats" attached to it would come out even further ahead in 3.5 rules. Weapons such as the halberd, light mace, and others had even more benefit if you had the right build.
The halberd got a boost, but it greataxe, if I remember correctly (not looking at my notes) had a higher crit multiplier, which gave it a slight edge when combined with the lower damage die of the halbard.
Well, to give credit to Jason Ellis 350,
* the Greataxe is a Martial, Two-Handed, Hafted weapon with 1d12 slashing damage (critical x3) and no special qualities
* the Halberd is a Martial, Two-Handed, Hafted weapon with 1d10 slashing or piercing damage (critical x3) and the Brace and Trip special qualities
The Halberd should be qualified as a better weapon, overall (strange it costs half as much as a Greataxe - another plus, IMHO)...
Well, to give credit to Jason Ellis 350,* the Greataxe is a Martial, Two-Handed, Hafted weapon with 1d12 slashing damage (critical x3) and no special qualities
* the Halberd is a Martial, Two-Handed, Hafted weapon with 1d10 slashing or piercing damage (critical x3) and the Brace and Trip special qualitiesThe Halberd should be qualified as a better weapon, overall (strange it costs half as much as a Greataxe - another plus, IMHO)...
Hmmm,
Ok, I'm willing to admit it is probably off. I multiplied the base damage by 10 to give me a good spread on numbers to let the subtle differences be easier to detect.Perhaps the percentages are off for the special abilities. I put them at 5% because I've rarely seen them used at all unless it's for a special build.
I think basing the base score off the damage dice is good, because if you make them too close based on damage die, you can't see the fine details of difference between the weapons. But perhaps giving special abilities more than 5% would be better.
Hmmm, are all special abilities created equal? I think Trip would be worth more than Monk, or Brace. Monk and Brace are situational.
How about this?
Exotic : -15%
Martial : -5%
Monk : 5%
Brace : 5%
Off-Hand : 5%
Multiple Damage : 5% (10% if 2 types at once)
Ranged Melee : 10%
Disarm : 10%
Trip : 10%
Reach : 10%
Double : 25%
Those modifications would do the following :
Greataxe : 65
Halberd : 66
Quarterstaff : 45.5
Whip : 23
The greatsword still tops the ranks at 70, and the whip and gauntlet still trail at 23 and 22 respectively.
Ok,
I also added in a 5% reduction for weapons that are easy to sunder. This includes anything with 5 pts of hardness or less (hafted weapons like axes or hammers, polearms, quarterstaffs, whips, etc). All metal weapons, like swords or chain weapons were not given this.
Any other adjustments I should take into account before I repost?
Well, fair...but then, technically what is the point in comparing the weapons. Weapons can't function in a vacuum and people who wield them rarely are amorphous blobs with 10 in stats, no feats, etc. In fact, if that was the case, Simple weapons should rate much higher, because there is a better chance said blob will have Simple Weapon Proficiency than Martial (though you said no feats).
Well,
The OP wanted to know if anyone had gone through and compared the weapons to each other. There's just too many build combinations to do a detailed analysis of the weapons based on all builds.I agree though that simple should rate higher if we are just comparing weapons, as it is more likely that random character A can use simple.
That's why I gave a -5% reduction to the martial weapons (it's less likely you can use the martial weapons effectively than the simples) and a -15% to the exotics (as it's MUCH less likely you can just pick them up and use them effectively). The reason this is not a feat issue is that you can use the weapon if you don't have the proficiency, you just gain penalties to hit (making the weapon less effective). So the assumption is that Blob can use simple weapons. I could have said 'Blob can only use clubs, since everyone can use a club', but then I'd have to go -5% on simples, -10% on martials, and -20% on exotics or something like that. I think picking simple as the baseline is good enough, the club is not exactly the best weapon anyway.
Don't forget to add in a bonus if the weapon can be used to deal more than one type of damage. The Halberd is a superior choice over the Greataxe to me, simply because the axe only does slashing damage, while the halberd can do either slashing or piercing.Also, the different weapon damages ought to be weighted differently. Bludgeoning and Slashing seem to have more uses at getting through DR, while piercing... I can't recall anything that made piercing a benefit.
Rakshasa ?
To be fair, this is a comprehensive list of all Bestiary creatures who are influenced by types of damage:
Bludgeoning:
Black Pudding
Gibbering Mouther
Golem, Clay
Lich
Ochre Jelly
Skeleton
Skeletal Champion
Vegepygmy
Xorn
Piercing:
Rakshasa
Slug, Giant
Slashing:
* Boggard (severing tongue)
* Cave Fisher (severing filament)
* Hydra (severing heads)
* Roper (severing strands)
Slug, Giant
Treant
Vegepygmy
Zombie
Judging from the Bestiary I alone, the real winner is Bludgeoning damage (Slashing has only 4 monsters which can be affected on every occasion, and 4 monsters where S damage is situationally good; of the 4 monsters affected by S damage, only 2 are unique - the other 2 can be affected either by B or P damage). However, this is, as I said, Bestiary I; it's kind of comparing the usefulness of Lawful weapons (like Monk's Unarmed Strikes) against creatures which have such DR - currently, the Bestiary I has no such creatures. But nothing precludes future Bestiaries to include such creatures. Better yet, digging through various 3.5 Monster Manuals/ Adventures/ Splats, there are surely a lot of creatures with such exotic DRs.
So, in conclusion, I believe that there's no need for weighting differently the various S/B/P damage. And of course, a weapon which can deal more types of damage (better yet, simultaneously) is more useful than one that deals just one type.
Just my 2 Slashing cents.
Alright, I've made a Google Docs spreadsheet using mdts' formula.
A couple of notes:
- It is still in its' "ugly stage." I haven't even tried to pretty it up yet. I'm focusing on function first.
- Cost and weight are there just because if I was inputting all that data, I didn't want to go back and add it later if it comes up.
- For ranged weapons that use ammo, the cost and weight include one "group" of ammo.
- I've yet to track down the cost and weight of armor items used as weapons.
- The Range modifier isn't working how mdt described it... I tried doing a few by hand, and my math equals the spreadsheet... But it isn't matching with what mdt stated. One of us isn't on the same page.
- While the "formula" for all metal weapons is in there, I haven't defined which weapons are all metal yet, since that is something of a judgment call - and I don't feel like doing that yet.
- The net is a special case because it doesn't do any damage at all, so its value is 0. I'd recommend using an average damage of 1 in this case.
Alright, I've made a Google Docs spreadsheet using mdts' formula.
A couple of notes:
- It is still in its' "ugly stage." I haven't even tried to pretty it up yet. I'm focusing on function first.
- Cost and weight are there just because if I was inputting all that data, I didn't want to go back and add it later if it comes up.
- For ranged weapons that use ammo, the cost and weight include one "group" of ammo.
- I've yet to track down the cost and weight of armor items used as weapons.
- The Range modifier isn't working how mdt described it... I tried doing a few by hand, and my math equals the spreadsheet... But it isn't matching with what mdt stated. One of us isn't on the same page.
- While the "formula" for all metal weapons is in there, I haven't defined which weapons are all metal yet, since that is something of a judgment call - and I don't feel like doing that yet.
- The net is a special case because it doesn't do any damage at all, so its value is 0. I'd recommend using an average damage of 1 in this case.
Nice. I'd suggest giving the #'s 2 decimals always, that's what I did locally.
As to the ranges, I'm still sort of playing with that, but I forgot to mention, I didn't adjust the melee ratings for their range if they were ranged. That's because I didn't want to bring down their ratings as most have low ranges. Afterall, a melee weapon you can throw should get a higher rating than one you can't if all other stats are the same. Instead, I put up a seperate listing for them under ranged that added in the range to give them a ranged score as well.
I also adjusted the range increment formula to give it finer detail.
(((Range/60)-1)/0.1)*0.025
What this does is give a 2.5% bonus for each 6 feet above 60, and remove a 2.5% bonus per 6 feet below 60. Similar to the previous 5% per 12 feet, but allows for finer detail.
Finally, for composite bows, I broke them out by Str Bonus. Obviously, the score assumes the bow can be used at it's maximum str bonus designed. This makes the Composite (+5) Longbow the master of the base weapons, as it does a 1d10+5 damage.
I did notice something though, crossbow's end up better than repeaters since repeaters are exotics. I'm wondering if I need to put in an adjustment factor for the fact that crossbow's are limited to one shot per round (or every other round) by default. Something like Slow or Extra Slow (depending on light or heavy). Maybe a -5% and -10% reduction... But then I'd have to put that on the thrown weapons (melee ranged weapons) as well, which is probably valid. come to think of it.
Thoughts?
Melee weapons with Ranged Ranged Scores
Dagger 22.50
Club 27.56
Shortspear 37.80
Spear 39.60
Axe, throwing 30.19
Hammer, light 23.00
Starknife 24.00
Trident 33.75
Ranged Weapon Scores
Blowgun 11.76
Crossbow, heavy 68.75
Crossbow, light 48.38
Dart 20.63
Javelin 29.09
Sling 22.56
Longbow 51.75
Longbow, composite (+0) 51.30
Longbow, composite (+1) 62.70
Longbow, composite (+2) 74.10
Longbow, composite (+3) 85.50
Longbow, composite (+4) 96.90
Longbow, composite (+5) 108.30
Shortbow 33.25
Shortbow, composite (+0) 34.08
Shortbow, composite (+1) 43.82
Shortbow, composite (+2) 53.56
Shortbow, composite (+3) 63.29
Shortbow, composite (+4) 73.03
Shortbow, composite (+5) 82.77
Bolas 17.44
Crossbow, hand 18.59
Crossbow, repeating heavy 58.44
Crossbow, repeating light 41.12
Shuriken 10.46
Sling staff, halfling 41.12
Forgot, I should list my most recent numbers with all the fixes posted here, to make things easier for Disenchanter.
Simple Weapons
Weapon Value
Gauntlet 22.00
Dagger 27.50
Dagger, punching 26.25
Gauntlet, spiked 25.00
Mace, light 33.25
Sickle 38.50
Club 36.75
Mace, heavy 42.75
Morningstar 47.25
Shortspear 47.25
Longspear 51.75
Quarterstaff 43.75
Spear 51.75
Martial Weapons
Axe, throwing 40.25
Hammer, light 28.75
Handaxe 38.50
Kukri 28.75
Pick, light 28.75
Sap 36.75
Starknife 30.00
Sword, short 38.50
Battleaxe 45.00
Flail 49.50
Longsword 45.00
Pick, heavy 35.00
Rapier 36.75
Scimitar 36.75
Trident 47.25
Warhammer 42.75
Falchion 50.00
Glaive 57.75
Greataxe 61.75
Greatclub 49.50
Flail, heavy 63.25
Greatsword 70.00
Guisarme 57.50
Halberd 63.25
Lance 47.25
Ranseur 57.50
Scythe 57.50
Exotic Weapons
Kama 38.50
Nunchaku 38.50
Sai 27.50
Siangham 35.00
Sword, bastard 49.50
Waraxe, dwarven 46.75
Whip 22.00
Axe, orc double 49.50
Chain, spiked 52.50
Curve blade, elven 52.25
Flail, dire 56.25
Hammer, gnome hooked 51.00
Sword, two-bladed 51.75
Urgrosh, dwarven 48.00
And, again, to make Disenchanter's life easier, the most recent formulas
Base: Average Damage times 10
Crit Range : 19 = +5%, 18 = +10%
Crit Multiplier : x3 = +5%, x3.5 = +7.5%, x4 = +10%
Reach : +10% if reach weapon
Ranged Melee : +10% (to both Melee rating, and Ranged rating)
Range : +2.5% per 6 feet above 60, or -2.5% per 6 feet below 60 (ranged stats only, not melee)
Trip : +10% if Trip Weapon
Disarm : +10% if Disarm Weapon
Brace : +5% if Brace Weapon
Monk : +5% if Monk Weapon
Off-Hand : +10% if Weapon can be used in Off-Hand
Double : +25% if weapon is a double weapon
Multiple Damage Types : +5% if weapon has choosable damage, +10% if it does 2 types simultaneously
And then the penalties
Martial : -5% if weapon requires Martial Proficiency
Exotic : -15% if weapon requires Exotic Proficiency
Hafted : -5% if the weapon is hafted (or easily sundered)
Weapons I considered 'hafted', or easily sundered due to mostly wood makeup :
Maces, Clubs, Morningstar, Spears, Quarterstaff, Flails, Picks, Trident, Hammers, Polearms, Lance, Scythe, Whips, Axes, Blowgun, Crossbows, Bows, Slings, Bolas, Sling Staff
Another thought, I'm thinking Bolas need a booster since they can entangle, not just trip. Maybe 5%?
Are you talking about the current formula, or what would be a good formula? The thing is that right now, there is more or less a point buy system for weapons.
1d3 - base
1d4 - 1 point
1d6 - 2 points
1d8 - 3 points
1d10/2d4 - 4 points
1d12/2d6 - 5 points
crit x2 - base
crit +x1 - 1 point
crit range 20 - base
crit range +1 - 1 point
Special ability - 1 point
Martial weapon - -1 points
exotic weapon - -2 points (usually)
Light - -2 points
Double - -3 points
One-hand - -3 points
Two-hand - -5 points
Total should end up ~0 for decent weapons.
Dagger = 1. (+1 dmg, +1 crit, +1 throwable, -2 light)
Light Mace = 0. (+2 dmg, -2 light)
Quarterstaff = 0. (+2 dmg, +1 finessable, -3 double)
Rapier = 1 (+2 dmg, +2 crit, +1 finessable, -3 1h, -1 mwp)
Longsword = -0 (+3 dmg, +1 crit, -3 1h, -1 mwp)
Greatsword = 0 (+5 dmg, +1 crit, -5 2h, -1 mwp)
---------------
That said, I don't think that's a fair point buy system at all. Crits are worth much more than a simple +1 damage, and I don't think higher damage per crit ratio can ever fix that (if the crit cost was for example 2 points, everyone would have low-crit high damage weapons at low level, and high-crit low damage weapons at high).
And if you're talking about how to make a rating of how good a weapon is, I don't think your formula is working very well mdt. A sickle isn't anywhere as good as a dagger.
Actually,
Increased crit range is roughly equal to increasing crit multiplier.
If the average damage is 10 for a given weapon (used to make the math easier), then you have the following (assuming a 50/50 chance to hit with the weapon):
avg 10 with 19-20/x2 : 10*0.50 + 10*2*0.05 = average damage 6
avg 10 with 20/x3 : 10*0.50 + 10*3*0.025 = average damage 5.75
avg 11 with 20/x2 : 11*0.50 + 11*2*0.025 = average damage 6.05
Boosting the damage die by +1 average damage, or increasing the crit multiplier or reducing the threshold by 1 are all roughly the same benefit over 100 attacks (the first does 600hp, the second 575, and the third 605 average over 100 attacks, very similar).
Where the numbers came from :
0.50 = assuming a 50/50 chance to hit, you do damage half the time, so average damage is 50% of the base average damage.
0.05 = you can crit on a 19-20, that is 10% chance to threaten a crit, and given a 50/50 chance to hit, you have a 50/50 chance to confirm the crit. So that is, you crit half the time you threaten. Half of 10% is 5%.
0.025 = Same as the 0.05, but you crit only on a 20, that is a 5% chance to crit, so half that is 2.5%.
EDIT: Also, the formula listed just above doesn't take into account melee weapons that can be used at range, reach, breakability, etc. It also penalizes double weapons, when a double weapon is actually a benefit as it's more flexible than a single weapon. Afterall, you can always use a double weapon as a single weapon.
Actually,
Increased crit range is roughly equal to increasing crit multiplier.
Yeah, of course it is. 5% chance of +200% damage is equal to 10% chance of +100% damage. On an average, it increases damage by 10%. It only makes difference when certain special abilities come into place.
The problem is that crit increases (both multipliers and ranges) are so far superior to damage.
Actually,
Increased crit range is roughly equal to increasing crit multiplier.
Yeah, of course it is. 5% chance of +200% damage is equal to 10% chance of +100% damage. On an average, it increases damage by 10%. It only makes difference when certain special abilities come into place.
The problem is that crit increases (both multipliers and ranges) are so far superior to damage.
Not really, that was the point of my post. It only comes into effect if you build specifically to maximize your chances of criting. The base weapon, without external sources, is about equal regardless of whether you increase the damage, the crit threshold, or the multiplier.
Now, if you take increased crit feats, or if you take keen on the weapon, then you are making the crit damage more important. But, then you are also modifying the weapon stats.
In other words, let's take Keen on a scimitar. That boosts the crit threshold to 15-20 (doubles the crit range). That makes the base weapon average damage improve as so (again, 50/50 chance to hit).
Avg Dmg : 3.5*0.5 + 3.5*2*0.15 = 1.75 + 1.05 = 2.8 average damage
If instead of making it keen, we added a 1d6 Flaming quality :
Avg Dmg : 3.5*0.5 + 3.5*0.5 + 3.5*2*0.075 = 1.75 + 1.75 + 0.525 = 4.025
So, in this case, adding to the base damage is, over time, much more useful than boosting the crit range. This of course doesn't take into account things like resistance to fire, or crit feats that boost ability.
But, as you can see, increasing crit range or multiplier simply can't keep up, over time, with increasing the base damage, unless you are heavily building your character towards a crit build, and since most of the crit feats require 10+ level, this is a high-level build only. At low to mid range levels you are much better off trying to increase your base damage than you are either crit or multiplier.
Now, if you can increase crit without sacrificing base damage, obviously that's always a good choice. For example, rogues have limited weapon choices, and a rapier is just as good as a short sword most of the time, with the advantage of having a higher crit range.
Forum ate my post. Damn.
In short, it depends on the amount of flat damage you do. If you do more than 20 damage in an attack, +1 threat or +1 multiplier is nearly always worth more than +1 damage.
20*0.5 + 20*2*0.05 = 12
20*0.5 + 20*3*0.025 = 11,5
21*0.5 + 21*2*0.025 = 11,05
And 20 damage per attack isn't hard to get by even at ~6-8th level, so it's not really only for high-level builds, though the problem is far more relevant to those.
Forum ate my post. Damn.
In short, it depends on the amount of flat damage you do. If you do more than 20 damage in an attack, +1 threat or +1 multiplier is nearly always worth more than +1 damage.
20*0.5 + 20*2*0.05 = 12
20*0.5 + 20*3*0.025 = 11,5
21*0.5 + 21*2*0.025 = 11,05And 20 damage per attack isn't hard to get by even at ~6-8th level, so it's not really only for high-level builds, though the problem is far more relevant to those.
If you look though, you're only averaging a point of damage difference across all 3. Which means it would take 1000 attacks to have even 95 hp difference. And that's at 20 per attack.
I just don't find that the multipliers and crit ranges end up doing as much as a change in raw base damage, when you look at it over time. A 1 pt increase in average damage works on 100% of successful attacks. A high crit and/or multiplier only work on 5% of successful attacks at under most circumstances. The only way to overcome this is to make a build that boosts base damage and the chance to confirm crits and to make crits in the first place. Which goes back to the argument that anything can be deadly if you spend enough resources on it.
A blowgun is pretty wussy. But if you dump +10 worth of enchantments on it, then add another 50K gp in non-bonus enhancements, and then enhance it's ammo and take every feat you can get to boost it's damage (weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc) and then dip all the ammo in the most noxious poison you can find then that blowgun is going to carve a swath through your enemies. But you've geared your entire character to that one weapon. Anytime you dedicate 80% of all your resources to a combat style, that style is going to be deadly, no matter what it is.
If you look though, you're only averaging a point of damage difference across all 3. Which means it would take 1000 attacks to have even 95 hp difference. And that's at 20 per attack.
Yeah, that's because 20 damage per attack is around where the difference starts to matter. I agree that the difference at those levels isn't huge, but it exists and is in favor of higher criticals. Also, I think it's affected a bit by the fact that many monsters have damage reduction, and thus higher maximum might mean it does more damage on a total. 2d8 does more than 1d8+5 against DR 10.
A high crit and/or multiplier only work on 5% of successful attacks at under most circumstances.
What? Crits work on 5% per threat range. A normal long sword will crit 10% of it's successful attacks. A scimitar 15%.
The only way to overcome this is to make a build that boosts base damage and the chance to confirm crits and to make crits in the first place. Which goes back to the argument that anything can be deadly if you spend enough resources on it.
Nearly all builds that's going into melee is wanting to boost it's base damage. It's not something you need a special build for. The exceptions are those that don't care much for flat damage, such as rogues with their SA.
A blowgun is pretty wussy. But if you dump +10 worth of enchantments on it, then add another 50K gp in non-bonus enhancements, and then enhance it's ammo and take every feat you can get to boost it's damage (weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc) and then dip all the ammo in the most noxious poison you can find then that blowgun is going to carve a swath through your enemies. But you've geared your entire character to that one weapon. Anytime you dedicate 80% of all your resources to a combat style, that style is going to be deadly, no matter what it is.
For most melee characters, dealing damage is their combat style. You don't need to dedicate 80% of resources to it, as they might also want to survive, but still, dealing damage isn't some obscure tactic.
If I would stat up a 4rd-level 20pt barbarian on the spot, I'd sink 16 points into strength (including the bonus for 4th level), give him a +1 falchion, and power attack. On a rage, he'd deal 2d4+1 +7 (str) +6 (PA), for an average of 19 damage per attack. That's just a regular barbarian with nothing iffy about him. I think his DPR with a greatsword and falchion would be about equal against most foes, with the greatsword coming out ahead against oozes and the falchion against enemies with damage reduction. However, the more levels he gains the more the falchion will start to look like the best alternative. The +2 damage from a greatsword is fairly static, but 5% more chance to deal +100% damage increases with other damage increases.
With a 4th level paladin, the situation would be the same, but with +4 to +8 from smite instead of +3 from rage. Of course, the smite is only useful against evil opponents. A fighter would have +3 from weapon training and weapon specialization.
A high crit and/or multiplier only work on 5% of successful attacks at under most circumstances.What? Crits work on 5% per threat range. A normal long sword will crit 10% of it's successful attacks. A scimitar 15%.
No, not quite.
A long sword will *threaten* a crit 10% of the time on a successful hit, if a 19+ is a successful hit. If a successful hit requires a 20, the long sword will only crit on a 20, and will require a 20 to confirm. Same for the scimitar. That is why it is useless to talk about a crit without saying what the chance to hit is in the first place.
For example :
If you have a 50/50 chance to hit (the chance I usually use when talking about crits), then you have the following chances to actually crit.
20: 5% (Chance to crit) * 50% (chance to confirm) = 2.5%
19-20: 10% (Chance to crit) * 50% (chance to confirm) = 5%
18-20: 15% (Chance to crit) * 50% (chance to confirm) = 7.5%
15-20: 25% (Chance to crit) * 50% (Chance to confirm) = 12.5%
However, a lot of the time, you don't have a 50% chance to hit until you get up into the higher levels, when BAB outstrips armor class. At lower levels, armor usually outdoes BAB, resulting in needing a 15+ to hit at lower levels. This is especially true for the classes that tend to use crits more (like rogues with a 3/4 BAB).
If you have only a 25% chance to hit in the first place (need a 15+ to hit), your numbers go down :
20: 5% (Chance to crit) * 25% (Chance to confirm) = 1.25%
19-20: 10% (Chance to crit) * 25% (Chance to confirm) = 2.5%
18-20: 15% (Chance to crit) * 25% (Chance to confirm) = 3.75%
15-20: 25% (Chance to crit) * 25% (Chance to confirm) = 6.25%
It gets really bad if you need a 19+ to hit in the first place.
20: 5% (Chance to crit) * 10% (Chance to confirm) = 0.5%
19-20: 10% (Chance to crit) * 10% (Chance to confirm) = 1.0%
18-20: 10% (Chance to crit) * 10% (Chance to confirm) = 1.0%
15-20: 10% (Chance to crit) * 10% (Chance to confirm) = 1.0%
Since to me until you get up to the level 10 or 12 stage, your opponents AC is going to outstrip your BAB you are looking, normally, at a 15+ to hit usually, and at 15+ even the highest crit range is just over 5% (6.25%). Again, each individual build varies, but in general in my experience crits are fun and everyone enjoys them, but they are not the way to go unless you are building your character to maximize them in every conceivable way. And since it's easier to enhance base damage than it is to maximize crit ability (weapon specialization/focus trees, which work for every attack) that's the better way to maximize damage. Crit maximization is just a flashy method that takes more investment.
If I would stat up a 4rd-level 20pt barbarian on the spot, I'd sink 16 points into strength (including the bonus for 4th level), give him a +1 falchion, and power attack. On a rage, he'd deal 2d4+1 +7 (str) +6 (PA), for an average of 19 damage per attack. That's just a regular barbarian with nothing iffy about him. I think his DPR with a greatsword and falchion would be about equal against most foes, with the greatsword coming out ahead against oozes and the falchion against enemies with damage reduction. However, the more levels he gains the more the falchion will start to look like the best alternative. The +2 damage from a greatsword is fairly static, but 5% more chance to deal +100% damage increases with other damage increases.
With a 4th level paladin, the situation would be the same, but with +4 to +8 from smite instead of +3 from rage. Of course, the smite is only useful against evil opponents. A fighter would have +3 from weapon training and weapon specialization.
Yep, again though, you are building your character to maximize his base damage, not his crit range. Note that.
That is all I ever said was that base damage is both easier, and a more sure thing, than relying crit range/multiplier. There's nothing wrong with picking a weapon that has a higher crit range/multiplier if it's a choice between two weapons that are roughly the same in raw damage, but you should go for base damage first, and worry about crit range/multiplier later. And build for max base damage, not boosting crits unless you plan on building your character to maximize the crits from the ground floor.
EDIT: And remember, that power attack you are talking about lowers your chance of hitting by 5% and thus also reducing your chance to do that +100% damage, which is the trade off.
Forum ate my post AGAIN. Darn it.
With successful attack I meant an attack that would hit. Chance to hit in percent is (105-5*(AC-AB)). Chance to make a critical is TR*0.05*(105-5*(AC-AB)), where TR is threat range.
Chance to crit at hit on 11+ for longsword is
2*0.05*(105-5*11) = 0.1*(105-55) = 0.1*50 = 5%. The longsword hits 50%, which of 5% (1/10th, 10%) are critical hits.
Chance to crit at hit on 19+:
2*0.05*(105-5*19)= 0.1*(105-95) = 0.1*10 = 1%. The attack hits 10%, which of 1% (1/10th, 10%) are critical hits.
-----------------------
If you're usually only hitting on 15+ on low levels, that means you're fighting basilisks at level 1. Literally. A first-level character should have at least +3 attack bonus if he partakes a lot in melee. That is matched by a CR5 monster's standard of 18 AC.
------------------------
Yes, the build was based around maxing damage as that is what the offensive part of a meleer usually is. Sure, there are combat maneouvers and such, but they don't usually care if you use a longsword or scimitar.
The characters that would want weapons with good criticals are:
- Characters that have high flat damage boni. This includes all paladins, barbarians and clerics, and most fighters and rangers.
- Characters that specialize in critical hits with feats and such.
Characters that would prefer high base damage on a weapon are:
- Characters with few flat boni but a damage problem, for example zweihander rogues and armed (hehe) monks.
- Really low-level characters that doesn't focus in a weapon type. If you're first level and not buying focus, then of course go with the longsword over the scimitar! It's better all day long, until you reach level 4-6 (depends on class and so on).
Well,
I guess we'll have to disagree on that Stringburka. In every game I've every played in, and every game I've ever run, the majority of low-level combat was against low level humanoids who wore armor.
A fighter certainly could have a +3. But, an enemy fighter with scale-mail is likely having an 18 AC while still being a 1st level warrior (NPC class wearing medium armor). This might be a hobgoblin, a goblin, another human, whatever. And, for the first 1-6 levels, that ac tends to hover around 16 to 20, making it a 15+ to hit for the low levels.
I can only assume you either run or play in games that either have no basis in reality (NPC fighters running around without armor so they only have 13 AC) or else you only fight monsters with low AC at those levels.
Just some low CR creatures from the Bestiary with higher than 13AC
Aasimar 15 (CR 1/2)
Animated Object 14 (CR 3)
Ankheg 16 (CR 3)
Hound Archon 19 (CR 4)
Lantern Archon 15 (CR 2)
Barghest 17 (CR 4)
Bat Swarm 16 (CR 2)
Giant Stag Beetle 17 (CR 4)
Bugbear 17 (CR 2)
Centaur 20 (CR 3)
Centipede Swarm 18 (CR 4)
Choker 17 (CR 2)
Giant Crab 16 (CR 2)
Crab Swarm 18 (CR 4)
Dark Stalker 18 (CR 4)
Quasit Demon 16 (CR 2)
Derro 17 (CR 3)
Imp 17 (CR 1)
Noble Drow 21 (CR 3)
Dryad 17 (CR 3)
Duerger 17 (CR 1/3)
Small Air Elemental 17 (CR 1)
Medium Air Elemental 19 (CR 3)
Small Earth Elemental 17 (CR 1)
Medium Earth Elemental 18 (CR 3)
Small Fire Elemental 16 (CR 1)
Medium Fire Elemental 17 (CR 3)
Small Water Elemental 17 (CR 1)
Medium Water Elemental 17 (CR 3)
Bat AC 16 (CR 1/8)
Janni 20 (CR 4)
Goblin 16 (CR 1/3)
Griffen 17 (CR 4)
Half-Celestial Unicorn 17 (CR 4)
Hobgoblin 16 (CR 1/2)
Iron Cobra 20 (CR 2)
Lizardfolk 17 (CR 1)
Werewolf 17 (CR 2)
Ogre 17 (CR 3)
Pixie 18 (CR 4)
Rust Monster 18 (CR 3)
Skeleton 16 (CR 1/3)
Skeletal Champion 21 (CR 2)
Spider Swarm 17 (CR 1)
Stirge 16 (CR 1/2)
Tiefling 16 (CR 1/2)
Vegepygmy 16 (CR 1/2)
All of these are creatures you'd expect to encounter between 1st and 6th level, and all have AC's of 16 to 21. And, all the humanoid creatures can easily have AC's in the low 20's (+2 Dex and Breastplate is 19 by itself, or a fighter with splint mail and +1 dex, and then add a light or heavy shield on top to pump it up into the 20's, and that's perfectly valid for a CR 1/2 fighter or warrior).
Again, I tend to find that AC outpaces BAB for the first 6 to 8 levels, and then BAB rapidly outstrips AC from 12 to 20. At least for fighters, non-fighters are basically hosed at higher levels as they can't hit the 28 to 38 AC's the baddies have and can't dodge their +18 bab's when being hit.
I cleaned it up some, but it is still ugly.
Some weapons are turning out as mdt calculates, some aren't. I've double checked, and all my values seem correct... Maybe another set of eyes - or more - will spot the errors.
I still need to look up cost and weight for the armor items, and haven't adjusted the net or bolas yet.
Also, as far as ranged, I was thinking of a bonus to weapons that allow iterative attacks... But a penalty to those that don't works too. Oh yeah, I need to add in composite bows as well.
I cleaned it up some, but it is still ugly.
Some weapons are turning out as mdt calculates, some aren't. I've double checked, and all my values seem correct... Maybe another set of eyes - or more - will spot the errors.
I still need to look up cost and weight for the armor items, and haven't adjusted the net or bolas yet.
Also, as far as ranged, I was thinking of a bonus to weapons that allow iterative attacks... But a penalty to those that don't works too. Oh yeah, I need to add in composite bows as well.
I'll try to take a look at the totals and see which weapons aren't matching and see where the difference is. But it will be later this week.
Well,
I guess we'll have to disagree on that Stringburka. In every game I've every played in, and every game I've ever run, the majority of low-level combat was against low level humanoids who wore armor.A fighter certainly could have a +3. But, an enemy fighter with scale-mail is likely having an 18 AC while still being a 1st level warrior (NPC class wearing medium armor).
Fair enough, a first level warrior with scale mail and heavy shield that is, but that's a fair assessment. Mostly our low-level encounters with npc's have them in studded leather, but I guess that's just a matter of playing style. I still think your DM might be a little mean if he gives you AC18 enemies at first level, especially as CR 1/3's. I usually try to at least take a glance at the stats by cr table for NPC's too. There's a reason orcs don't have hide and heavy wooden shield ;).
Just some low CR creatures from the Bestiary with higher than 13AC
Actually, it would have to be higher than 11+2*CR, since fighter-type characters gain roughly 2 AB per level at low levels.
2: mw weap3: wf,
4: ability boost.
5: more reliably beeing buffed
(some variations might occur, fighters get weapon training and half-way melee classes like cleric will have less ability bonus and BAB but better access to spells instead and so on).
That would leave us with:
Aasimar 15 (CR 1/2)
Bat Swarm 16 (CR 2)
Bugbear 17 (CR 2)
Centaur 20 (CR 3)
Choker 17 (CR 2)
Giant Crab 16 (CR 2)
Quasit Demon 16 (CR 2)
Imp 17 (CR 1)
Noble Drow 21 (CR 3)
Duerger 17 (CR 1/3)
Small Air Elemental 17 (CR 1)
Medium Air Elemental 19 (CR 3)
Small Earth Elemental 17 (CR 1)
Medium Earth Elemental 18 (CR 3)
Small Fire Elemental 16 (CR 1)
Small Water Elemental 17 (CR 1)
Bat AC 16 (CR 1/8)
Janni 20 (CR 4)
Goblin 16 (CR 1/3)
Hobgoblin 16 (CR 1/2)
Iron Cobra 20 (CR 2)
Lizardfolk 17 (CR 1)
Werewolf 17 (CR 2)
Rust Monster 18 (CR 3)
Skeleton 16 (CR 1/3)
Skeletal Champion 21 (CR 2)
Spider Swarm 17 (CR 1)
Stirge 16 (CR 1/2)
Tiefling 16 (CR 1/2)
Vegepygmy 16 (CR 1/2)
Those that would be hit on 15+ would be:
Iron Cobra 20 (CR 2)
Skeletal Champion 21 (CR2)
Which was the claim I originally made, that hitting on 15+ for a level-appropriate challenge is rare in a standard game.
I'll try to take a look at the totals and see which weapons aren't matching and see where the difference is. But it will be later this week.
Here are the melee weapons that are different, and how your rating compares to my spreadsheet:
Dagger (Much Lower)
Dagger, Punching (Lower)
Gauntlet, Spiked (Lower)
Mace, Light (Lower)
Shortspear (Much Higher)
Longspear (Higher)
Axe, Throwing (Higher)
Hammer, Light (Higher)
Handaxe (Higher)
Pick, Light (Higher)
Battleaxe (Higher)
Falchion (Lower)
Guisarme (Lower)
Halberd (Higher)
Kama (Higher, likely due to me clasifying it as Hafted)
Nunchaku (Higher, likely due to me clasifying it as Hafted)
Has anyone done a methodical deconstruction of the basic weapons in the game?
That is, break down all of the rule elements with weapons, like die type, crit type, special abilities and then gave weighted values to all of these elements? Kind of a deconstruction that would create a point buy system for weapons?
I've seen a number of breakdown formulas, but the problem is that there are a lot of exceptions (e.g. there's no formula that can really explain why a greatclub is a martial weapon).
Has anyone done a methodical deconstruction of the basic weapons in the game?
That is, break down all of the rule elements with weapons, like die type, crit type, special abilities and then gave weighted values to all of these elements? Kind of a deconstruction that would create a point buy system for weapons?
I'm just curious about the real value of individual weapons when you go down the rabbit hole and crunch and crunch away with the numbers.
The system isn't perfectly mathematical, but there is a sort of calculus.
Your 'base' weapons are the one-handed martial weapons we all know and love, the longsword. 1d8 damage, 19-20 crit range, x2 critical multiplier.
As the base weapon, this effectively sets the ground for any shifting. Basically, any shift in the abilities of the weapon require an equivalent reduction in effectiveness.
Things that constitute improvements include: increasing the damage die by one size, expanding the critical range by one, increasing the critical multiplier by one, reducing the size of the weapon, and adding a special effect or ability. Note that not all abilities are created equal in this regard; the ability to set spears and similar weapons against a charge, for example, seems not to have anything taken away from the base weapon, while the ability to throw the weapon effectively (i.e. with a range increment greater than 10) does.
Things that constitute reductions include: decreasing the damage die by one size, increasing the size of the weapon, removing a special effect or ability, and reducing the critical range or multiplier by 1.
There are, of course, exceptions, but let me run through a few examples using the above assumptions.
The longsword is d8 19-20 x2. From this weapon, we get:
1) The shortsword (d6/19-20/x2). We made the weapon one size smaller, but also reduced the damage die.
2) The dagger (d4/19-20/x2). Two sizes smaller, two reductions in damage die.
3) The scimitar (d6/18-20/x2). Same size, reduction in damage die, increase in critical threat range.
4) Battle axe (d8/x3). Same size, same damage, reduction in threat range but increase in multiplier.
Then things get a little wiggly. The weapon "up" in size and damage from the longsword isn't the greatsword; its the bastard sword (d10/19-20/x2). The reduction in effectiveness is the increase in size from one to two-handed OR Exotic Weapon Proficiency. The weapon up from that is the greatsword, which is two-handed only. [Note that the same set of steps takes the battle axe to the dwarven waraxe to the greataxe.]
A great many weapons fit into this schema, but as I said above, it's not a perfectly mathematical progression. Some judgment is needed, particularly because so many niches are already filled by existing weapons.
It is there, though. Just don't look at the greatclub as an exemplar of the system; the club and greatclub are perhaps the least effective members of their respective weapon groups.
Another Google Spreadsheet version.
I added the strength modified composite bows, assumed an average damage of 1 for the net, added in the cost and weight of the armor items as weapons, and added "bang for X" columns (in smaller font) for curiosities sake. (Turns out the sling is the "best" weapon for its' cost, and the dart is the "best" weapon for its' weight... Go figure.)
I also cleaned it up even more.
Another Google Spreadsheet version.
I added the strength modified composite bows, assumed an average damage of 1 for the net, added in the cost and weight of the armor items as weapons, and added "bang for X" columns (in smaller font) for curiosities sake. (Turns out the sling is the "best" weapon for its' cost, and the dart is the "best" weapon for its' weight... Go figure.)
I also cleaned it up even more.
Ok,
Seems to be a mixture of both of us leaving off flags. Although I admit it was more me than you. Our numbers now seem to be in agreement, except for the nunchaku, which is mostly just a difference of interpretation (see below). :)Things I messed up :
Dagger : Forgot to give it off-hand and ranged bennys.
Punch Dagger : Forgot off-hand
Spiked Gauntlet : Forgot off-hand
Mace, Light : Forgot off-hand
Shortspear : Had the wrong average damage
Throwing Axe : Forgot to add in the haft
Light Hammer : Forgot to add in the haft
Handaxe : Forgot to add in the haft
Light Pick : Forgot to add in the haft
Battleaxe : Forgot to add in the haft
Falchion : Had the haft option selected for some strange reason.
Kama : Forgot to add haft
Things you left off :
Sickle : Trippable Weapon
Longspear : Crit Multiplier is x3, not x2
Guisarme : You've got it listed as multiple types of damage
Halberd : You're missing the multiple types of damage (flip-flopped with Guisarme)
As to the nunchaku, I left the hafted off since they come as either two wooden sticks with a cord between, or, two metal rods with a chain between, so it's really just which one you buy. Since D&D doesn't make a price difference between the two, I always had the 'sticks & cord' version just be one you can make for free with a craft roll, and the metal one be the ones that are sold in the shops for listed price. So I didn't put hafted for it.
Well,
I guess we'll have to disagree on that Stringburka. In every game I've every played in, and every game I've ever run, the majority of low-level combat was against low level humanoids who wore armor.A fighter certainly could have a +3. But, an enemy fighter with scale-mail is likely having an 18 AC while still being a 1st level warrior (NPC class wearing medium armor).
Fair enough, a first level warrior with scale mail and heavy shield that is, but that's a fair assessment. Mostly our low-level encounters with npc's have them in studded leather, but I guess that's just a matter of playing style. I still think your DM might be a little mean if he gives you AC18 enemies at first level, especially as CR 1/3's. I usually try to at least take a glance at the stats by cr table for NPC's too. There's a reason orcs don't have hide and heavy wooden shield ;).
Heh, I'm the GM usually, but when others GM, it's generally given that the equipment is roughly similar. It's not like the equipment is expensive all that much either.
Just some low CR creatures from the Bestiary with higher than 13ACActually, it would have to be higher than 11+2*CR, since fighter-type characters gain roughly 2 AB per level at low levels.
2: mw weap
3: wf,
4: ability boost.
5: more reliably beeing buffed
(some variations might occur, fighters get weapon training and half-way melee classes like cleric will have less ability bonus and BAB but better access to spells instead and so on).
Again, I think our games differ. Especially at 5. I routinely run up to mid teens with little in the way of buffs going on normally, unless they know ahead of time they are going up against a nasty (like a dragon). They usually reserve their spells for healing, damage, and crowd control. Then again, as I said, I tend to run them against a lot of enemies rather than one big bad guy, and so buffs aren't worth as much as crowd control. I think it all depends on the game you are in.
Another Google Spreadsheet version.
I added the strength modified composite bows, assumed an average damage of 1 for the net, added in the cost and weight of the armor items as weapons, and added "bang for X" columns (in smaller font) for curiosities sake. (Turns out the sling is the "best" weapon for its' cost, and the dart is the "best" weapon for its' weight... Go figure.)
I also cleaned it up even more.
If I might make a suggestion, I'd copy the column headers and duplicate them on each row beginning a new type of weapon. Once you scroll down it get's hard to match the columns to their meaning.
Heh, I'm the GM usually, but when others GM, it's generally given that the equipment is roughly similar. It's not like the equipment is expensive all that much either.
To me, it's partly that 18 AC is IMO way too high for a cr 1/3, and partly that I simply can't see most opponents having scale mails due to availability. The 1st-level warrior opponents our chars most often meet are usually bandits, ruffians, and cheap henchmen of evil villains as well as savage humanoids like wild elves and orcs. I just can't see these running around in metal armor a lot. Also, I remember that in 3.5, the DMG stated that most warriors on a battlefield (as in large-scale war) would have studded leather. If they only wear that when employed by an army, how would they afford it privately? Still, going by the WBL for NPC's, you're right in that they should be able to afford it. I don't like that chart for 1-st level characters though, simply because a beggar has 260 gp worth of commoner's outfits, or something.
Again, I think our games differ. Especially at 5. I routinely run up to mid teens with little in the way of buffs going on normally, unless they know ahead of time they are going up against a nasty (like a dragon).
Just some low CR creatures from the Bestiary with higher than 13ACActually, it would have to be higher than 11+2*CR, since fighter-type characters gain roughly 2 AB per level at low levels.
2: mw weap
3: wf,
4: ability boost.
5: more reliably beeing buffed
(some variations might occur, fighters get weapon training and half-way melee classes like cleric will have less ability bonus and BAB but better access to spells instead and so on).
At level 5, the WBL is 10500. Even if you haven't got ye olde magic shoppe (we don't in our group), you should be able to get your hands on +1 AB for those money, by crafting if nothing else. And even without magic items/spells, fighters, barbarians, and paladins usually have a margin by their other abilities.
Heh, sorry that this has gone so far off-topic. It's interesting to see different players aspects though. I think I'll pit my players against a bunch of heavily armored elves soon, we're just starting a new game.
Heh, I'm the GM usually, but when others GM, it's generally given that the equipment is roughly similar. It's not like the equipment is expensive all that much either.To me, it's partly that 18 AC is IMO way too high for a cr 1/3, and partly that I simply can't see most opponents having scale mails due to availability. The 1st-level warrior opponents our chars most often meet are usually bandits, ruffians, and cheap henchmen of evil villains as well as savage humanoids like wild elves and orcs. I just can't see these running around in metal armor a lot. Also, I remember that in 3.5, the DMG stated that most warriors on a battlefield (as in large-scale war) would have studded leather. If they only wear that when employed by an army, how would they afford it privately? Still, going by the WBL for NPC's, you're right in that they should be able to afford it. I don't like that chart for 1-st level characters though, simply because a beggar has 260 gp worth of commoner's outfits, or something.
True enough, but, when you're dealing with bandits, or just evil adventurers, they do steal things. Also, I was using scale mail as an example. A warrior with a dex 14 (+2), Leather Armor (+3), a heavy shield (+2) and Dodge (+1) is still an 18. A rogue with Dex 16 (+3), Leather Armor (+3), buckler (+1) and Dodge (+1) is 18 as well, and again, 1st level. And leather + buckler is way cheap.
Add in a wizard, sorcerer or adept with mage armor and a 16 dex and you get 17 AC at 1st level without even trying (or using feats).
Yeah, though, at 5th level get 10.5K, and yes, I'd expect a 5th level character to have +1 weapon, +1 armor, and some utility items. On the other hand, a level 5 character should be fighting 4 to 7 CR enemies. And some of those 7CR enemies (which I didn't list out) have AC's in the mid 20's, so again, you're looking at anywhere from 12+ to 15+ regularly.
Things you left off :
Sickle : Trippable Weapon
Longspear : Crit Multiplier is x3, not x2
Guisarme : You've got it listed as multiple types of damage
Halberd : You're missing the multiple types of damage (flip-flopped with Guisarme)
Done, and
If I might make a suggestion, I'd copy the column headers and duplicate them on each row beginning a new type of weapon. Once you scroll down it get's hard to match the columns to their meaning.
Done.
Latest Google Docs spreadsheet (It still needs more sprucing up, but that wil be later.