Do your fighters go around slapping enemies with the tea cozy their grandmother made for them on her deathbed? Requiring fewer hits to kill a guy makes a weapon better; and while characters can't tell exact weapon stats apart, they can damn well tell the difference between using a dagger and using a greataxe.
I think you missed the point...
There are many aspects to a weapon, and having higher average damage is just one. Reach, brace, trip, etc. are examples. Another is that somebody may favor high crit multipliers for death by massive damage, or high crit ranges for use of critical feats. You may also not be so impressed by crit ranges if you foresee fighting many enemies that require nearly 20 to hit (rare, I'd say). Damage type can be important, and weight is even a factor for some (though rarely).
For example, a dwarf may choose a Dwarven Longaxe over the Greatsword. "Butbutbut the Greatsword does more average damage!" Sorry, the Dwarven Longaxe has reach. In most situations, the AoO gained from reach outweighs the 0.2 extra damage from a Greatsword. Having reach can be very useful in less quantitative ways: approach foes with reach without suffering AoO, threaten more squares, allow ally in front of you to attack with you... Average damage per attack is just one aspect of a weapon.
I'll say it again: Having higher average damage doesn't make a weapon "better". It just means it has... higher average damage.
Having higher average damage doesn't make a weapon "better". It just means it has... higher average damage.Do your fighters go around slapping enemies with the tea cozy their grandmother made for them on her deathbed? Requiring fewer hits to kill a guy makes a weapon better; and while characters can't tell exact weapon stats apart, they can damn well tell the difference between using a dagger and using a greataxe.
Except that "average" damage isn't necessarily the measure for better. As an extreme example, my custom magic lightsaber of blinking does 40d100 points of damage, but only works 25% of the time and the rest of the time flickers out at just the wrong time. On average, it will kill anything in four rounds.
Now use that weapon against a tribe of kobolds.
Maximum damage against a creature is capped by that creature's hit points, which in turn caps the effective average. The tea cozy doing 1d1+4 of strength bonus is actually better than my lightsaber as any hit is a guaranteed kill against any single stock kobold.
|
Except weapons in Pathfinder don't magically blink out and stop working. If you do 1d1+4 damage with a tea cozy, you will do 1d10+6 damage with a nodachi, which is still enough to kill a kobold on every hit. And you'll have the same, if not higher, attack bonus on the nodachi because who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?Having higher average damage doesn't make a weapon "better". It just means it has... higher average damage.Do your fighters go around slapping enemies with the tea cozy their grandmother made for them on her deathbed? Requiring fewer hits to kill a guy makes a weapon better; and while characters can't tell exact weapon stats apart, they can damn well tell the difference between using a dagger and using a greataxe.Except that "average" damage isn't necessarily the measure for better. As an extreme example, my custom magic lightsaber of blinking does 40d100 points of damage, but only works 25% of the time and the rest of the time flickers out at just the wrong time. On average, it will kill anything in four rounds.
Now use that weapon against a tribe of kobolds.
Maximum damage against a creature is capped by that creature's hit points, which in turn caps the effective average. The tea cozy doing 1d1+4 of strength bonus is actually better than my lightsaber as any hit is a guaranteed kill against any single stock kobold.
Sudden urge to make a Weapon Master fighter using a tea cozy. Must resist the epic failure of trolling awesomeness.
because who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?
depends, what special weapon qualities does "tea cozy" have?
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP
Let's look at a Longsword vs a Battleaxe, shall we?
Longsword
Price: 15 gp
1. Average damage (d8): 4.5
2. Average critical damage (x2): 9
3. If you apply the percent chance to score a critical to the extra damage (10%, 4.5 extra damage): .45
Total average damage (#1 + #3): 4.95
Battleaxe
Price: 10 gp
1. Average damage (d8): 4.5
2. Average critical damage (x3): 13.5
3. If you apply the percent chance to score a critical to the extra damage (5%, 9 extra damage): .45
Total average damage (#1 + #3): 4.95
Results?
The battleaxe is cheaper to buy and has a higher top end damage, but other than that, the two are the same.
Except weapons in Pathfinder don't magically blink out and stop working. If you do 1d1+4 damage with a tea cozy, you will do 1d10+6 damage with a nodachi, which is still enough to kill a kobold on every hit. And you'll have the same, if not higher, attack bonus on the nodachi because who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?
If two weapons are otherwise identical but one has higher average damage, that is the better weapon. However, considering all other traits a weapon has, seeing one weapon having higher average damage than another in no way means seeing that weapon being directly better than the other, since it's only one of the traits.
A dagger is generally a better weapon than a sickle, even though the sickle has higher average damage. The dagger is finessable, can be thrown, and has better crit range. It also has less penalty for TWF.
Seeing that the sickle has higher damage than the dagger doesn't mean the sickle is better than the dagger, it just means exactly that the sickle has higher damage than the dagger. That was what Kazrandir said.
because who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?depends, what special weapon qualities does "tea cozy" have?
- Torger
Absorbent: +1 vs water elementals, but that only works once per combat before it becomes soggy.
Embroidered: +1 to diplomacy at tea parties.It also has a ranged increment of 15.
The real danger is when a Monk of the Empty hand gets a hold of it. Then it suddenly becomes a dagger, and later a sword sword, for all intents and purposes.
because who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?depends, what special weapon qualities does "tea cozy" have?
- Torger
Absorbent: +1 vs water elementals
Embroidered: +1 to diplomacy at tea partiesIt also has a ranged increment of 15.
Wouldn't that mean a commoner could kill someone by throwing a tea cozy or two at him? Just a thought...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathematician in the hizzy.
While average damage is an important metric, it's not the only important measure of a weapon. In evaluating a weapon we should be thinking in terms of how much damage a reference opponent (or a set of different reference opponents) can do to a given build before it is killed by the sword or axe wielder. For many opponents that extra x1 from an axe will be enough to fell them on a critical hit whereas they might survive a critical hit from a x2 weapon and live to do another round worth of damage to our heroes.
For those of you who like stats homework, I'd suggest creating a pair of fighter builds at a reasonable level (somewhere between 4 and 8, say) and running simulations to see on average how often each fighter wins against a given foe. This is more or less what Deadliest Warrior did. Better yet write a bit of code that runs that simulation for given hero and enemy stat blocks and post it somewhere online, preferably in a format that someone could fill in a few fields and run it themselves.
because who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?depends, what special weapon qualities does "tea cozy" have?
- Torger
Absorbent: +1 vs water elementals, but that only works once per combat before it becomes soggy.
Embroidered: +1 to diplomacy at tea parties.It also has a ranged increment of 15.
The real danger is when a Monk of the Empty hand gets a hold of it. Then it suddenly becomes a dagger, and later a sword sword, for all intents and purposes.
.... if you'll all excuse me I have a monk to roll up.
- Torger
Whenever people talk about better average damage, I wonder what keeps them coming back to the table. Is it because they tally up the total damage the deal at the end of the session and average it among the number of hits and smirk with satisfaction at the high average they have achieved...
Or is it because that one time you really needed to, you confirmed your crit and rolled two twelves and an eleven.
It's the same reason people get addicted to slot machines. You don't remember the nearlies as much as you remember the amazings.
Then again I'm sure some people do like their smirks.
I think you missed the point...There are many aspects to a weapon, and having higher average damage is just one. Reach, brace, trip, etc. are examples.
Alright, I was wrong implicitly accuse you of REAL ROLEPLAYER! threadcrapping.
Alright, I was wrong implicitly accuse you of REAL ROLEPLAYER! threadcrapping.
I think you missed the point...There are many aspects to a weapon, and having higher average damage is just one. Reach, brace, trip, etc. are examples.
Well, some of those aspects would be real concerns for martially trained individuals, I suppose. There is a reason why most historical armies had spear formations and not greatsword or rapier formations.
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see a problem with the math. The axe has a 5% chance to threaten a critical. The sword has a 10% chance to threaten a critical. The multiplier is only 50% higher. I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.That "50%" comes from comparing the wrong numbers, btw. It's +100% damage vs. +200% damage. It's *1 additional damage vs. *2 additional damage.
In a statistically simple world, the battleaxe and longsword are exactly even in the long run. But that's assuming no crit riders and no overkill, no significant DR or need-20-to-hit opponents.
@OP
Let's look at a Longsword vs a Battleaxe, shall we?
Longsword
Price: 15 gp
1. Average damage (d8): 4.5
2. Average critical damage (x2): 9
3. If you apply the percent chance to score a critical to the extra damage (10%, 4.5 extra damage): .45
Total average damage (#1 + #3): 4.95Battleaxe
Price: 10 gp
1. Average damage (d8): 4.5
2. Average critical damage (x3): 13.5
3. If you apply the percent chance to score a critical to the extra damage (5%, 9 extra damage): .45
Total average damage (#1 + #3): 4.95Results?
The battleaxe is cheaper to buy and has a higher top end damage, but other than that, the two are the same.
This is critically important. A large majority of the responses in this thread accept that the mathematics posited by the OP is correct, and attempt to justify the weapon via flavor or cost reasons, when in fact the math isn't correct.
Let's extrapolate some, shall we? Assume you're a Level 1 Warrior with no STR score, and you hit a monster with the following rolls:
19, 20
With a Longsword, you will crit on both the 19 and the 20, while with the Battleaxe you will crit only on the 20, while the 19 will be a normal hit:
----------------------------------
Longsword:
Minimum Damage: 2+2 = 4 damage.
Average Damage: 9+9 = 18 damage.
Maximum Damage: 16+16 = 32 damage.
Battleaxe:
Minimum Damage: 3+1 = 4 damage.
Average Damage: 13.5+4.5 = 18 damage.
Maximum Damage: 24+8 = 32 damage.
----------------------------------
It's the same. Even when you add flat damage bonuses such as from enchantments or strength, they scale the same. Heck, let's even throw in a Flaming Burst enchantment, to really complicate things!
----------------------------------
+1 Flaming Burst Longsword:
Minimum Damage: 4[+2] + 4[+2] = 8 slashing [+4 fire damage].
Average Damage: 11[+9] + 11[+9] = 22 slashing [+18 fire damage].
Maximum Damage: 18[+16] + 18[+16] = 36 slashing, [+32 fire damage].
+1 Flaming Burst Battleaxe:
Minimum Damage: 4[+2] + 4[+2] = 8 slashing [+4 fire damage].
Average Damage: 16.5[+14.5] + 5.5[+3.5] = 22 slashing [+18 fire damage].
Maximum Damage: 27[+26] + 9[+6] = 36 damage [+32 fire damage].
----------------------------------
Once again, when you add everything up it's the same. The difference between the two lies in if you as a player prefer:
• larger spikes in damage(battleaxe), useful against single targets or creatures with DR or Resistances.
• more consistent damage(longsword), useful against multiple targets or creatures with no damage mitigation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, a sickle and a dagger have the exact same penalty for dual-wielding them with TWF, since they are both light. The sickle is also finessable. The dagger can be thrown, however it is probably at the bottom of the list for ranged options. As far as average DPR goes, the sickle has almost 50% more damage. Based on that, I'd say the sickle is the better melee weapon, although I'd probably keep a couple of daggers on hand for throwing from close range.
Yes, the sickle does more average damage.***
Does this make the sickle strictly better than the dagger? Absolutely not.
The dagger is flexible in that it can deal piercing or slashing damage. It grants +2 to Sleight of Hand checks to conceal it on your body. It has a higher crit range, enabling crit feats to activate more often. As mentioned, the dagger can be thrown. The sickle has the trip quality.
Which one is better? As usual in this game, it depends. Depends on your character, your campaign, your intended build, etc.
***footnote: The dagger actually does more average damage than the sickle when the static bonuses to damage are high. This is due to its high crit range. Also, Keen Dagger does more average damage than the Keen Sickle when the static bonus to damage is just +9 or above. (Assuming nat rolls of 17 hit the enemy)
Because dwarves.
Somehow badassery just isnt the same if they had pointy sticks....
And something just wouldnt be right if or had nice pointy sticks...
15-20/x2 isn't equal to 20/x4.
20/x4 = 18-20/x2
15-20/x2 = 19-20/x4I find it helps to think of it as a kind of roulette table. You get "chips" you can put on "numbers" and each chip gives you another damage die when that number comes up.
An ordinary weapon has one chip, which you put on 20 and so does double damage on a twenty.
A sword or an axe gets two chips. The sword puts one chip on 19, one on 20; the axe puts them both on twenty and hence gets two bonus damage dice for a total of 3x.
A 20/x4 weapon gets three chips, all on 20; an 18-20/x2 weapon is also a three-chip weapon.
A 15-20/x2 weapon would be a six chip weapon (chips on 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20), equivalent to a 20/x7 or a 19-20/x4 or an 18-20/x3.
Oh how I would love a 20/x7 weapon. Even if I could not put keen or improved critical on it. I would stack as many burst properties as possible on an impact weapon wielded by a 20th level viking warrior. Have the lethal accuracy and elemental rage powers and the vital strike chain.
On that one chance that I crit, I get to deal x12 damage +8d10 each of flaming/icy/shocking/corrosive damage +8d8 thundering damage +6d6 elemental damage 8DI dont care that it would be utterly complete overkill, It would just be to much fun ^-^
I like the fact that the viking can get an additional x2 to her criticals.
Why do I have this running through my head??
I like big axe and i cannot lie
Does damage with a twelve-side die
When a dwarf goes rage
With a times-three crit
And a great axe in your face
You get
FEELINGS!!!
Except weapons in Pathfinder don't magically blink out and stop working. If you do 1d1+4 damage with a tea cozy, you will do 1d10+6 damage with a nodachi, which is still enough to kill a kobold on every hit. And you'll have the same, if not higher, attack bonus on the nodachi...
Sure they do. You can get cursed weapons that do this, a ring of blinking will do this to your weapons, a brilliant weapon will 'blink' past non-living material, Ethereal creatures are only partly there, an eidolons attacks with the shadow form evolution phase through reality. It is actually not that much of a stretch.
who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?
Oh now I want to build an improvised weapon fighter that runs around and slaps people with his grannies tea cozy to death. Oh the epicness!
You really got to watch out on that sarcasm, people tend to take these things seriously :)And BTW Im axe all the way.
Actually, a sickle and a dagger have the exact same penalty for dual-wielding them with TWF, since they are both light.
Oh, remembered sickles as medium-sized. My bad.
As far as average DPR goes, the sickle has almost 50% more damage.
Only if you don't have any kind of damage bonus (or rather, if it doesn't have any kind of damage bonus it deals 34% extra damage considering crits so almost 50 isn't really correct either way). Which most characters tend to have (if someone doesn't have any damage bonus at all with a weapon, I'd say they should stay out of melee regardless). Even a lowly +7/hit (sneak attacking 3rd level rogue, 4th/5th level fighter with weapon spec, barbarian etc etc) will make the damage bonus as low as 5%.
And you completely ignored the higher crit chance.
Of course, if you have martial weapon proficiency, you'd be better off with a gladius or a shortsword, or even a dogslicer for that matter.
Why would anyone ever use a shortsword? If higher average base damage = better weapon, shouldn't everyone use a Large Bastard Sword or similar, like the barbarian iconic? Anyone with access to the gladius could just as easily have a greatsword, aren't they better weapons?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the determining factor in weapon choices of armies generally speaking cost> ease of training> effectiveness for the standard grunts?
Hmmm... interesting point. Sadly, this game has buggier mechanics for the first two. Your standard weapon will typically cost between 1-5 months salary for the average person (based off of living expenses per month in goods and services section).After level 1, however, such a cost is often a trifle. You average 8th level character probably has enough gold to buy his own small town and live in cartoonish extravagance. You can further see this in the fact that One can spend their life training in one specific weapon through things like half elves' ancestral arms or a weapon familiarity, but learn dozens in just a short time with a dip into fighter.
But yes, sheer numbers tends to be the game for warfare. But a weapon with a bit of reach tends to be easier to use and live to fight another battle afterwards than the up close and personal sword. It is simple to train in because the basic spear is so effective.
Longspears and even regular spears are still excellent infantry weapons in pathfinder. Being able to brace is really useful, not to talk about reach. And they're cheap.
This is not a rules question.
Also, there are certain circumstances where you want a higher crit multiplier. One such circumstance is a 19th level two-handed fighter, who can automatically threaten a critical.
Sorry, from forum comments, people hardely see 15th little-alone 19th. LOL
Hmm... Maybe the dice damage should switch?
Maybe we should House-rule this till the next version comes out
Great Axe: 2D6 x3 Critical
Great Sword: 1D12 19-20/x2 Critical
That would about even things out there in my opinion. Not sure what to do about the other weapons and the falchion.
P.S. Here is another idea
Improved Hacking
Benefit: While using an axe weapon with a x3 critical modifier that they are proficient with, the critical range is increased by one number to 19-20 while still retaining the x3 critical modifier. This effect is not multiplied by keen weapon effect or the improved critical feat, but is added to the weapon afterwards making it an 18-20 critical range with a x3 critical modifier.
This maybe too much though.
-Hexen
always wondered why folks have dwarves use axes so much--for people associated with earth and stone as often as they are, wouldn't the pick or hammer be more fitting (which they get as well, dont get me wrong)?
just musing there.
to OP: Because. simple as that.
Except weapons in Pathfinder don't magically blink out and stop working. If you do 1d1+4 damage with a tea cozy, you will do 1d10+6 damage with a nodachi, which is still enough to kill a kobold on every hit. And you'll have the same, if not higher, attack bonus on the nodachi because who in their right mind is going to take Weapon Focus (tea cozy)?
Gramma Brox take t-cozy as weppin. Gramma Brox one tough cookee. Gramma Brox tell me she switch to woodin spoon for crit range but still love cozy damages...
(Betta watch out, Gramma also take too weppin proof...perf...too weppin using)
always wondered why folks have dwarves use axes so much
Because Gimli famously carried an axe. So, less famously, did Durin and most of the dwarves of Moria.
And D&D is basically footnotes to Tolkien.
hey one thing I want to bring out that you cant use keen weapon and improved crit they dont stack.
Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen. If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll. This benefit doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).
this was taken from the paizo prd.
far as i know, nobody's said they stack here. for teh various MATHS above that people have done it's been 'keen/improved critical', usually meaning one or the other.
The calculations I did we're assuming a level 1 fighter with 18 Str and I realize now I forgot to include the static 4 damage from Str. Mainly I refuted 3 of your points and still showed that at low levels the sickle is the better weapon compared to a dagger.
Mainly, you 'refuted' a point with your incorrect calculation, totally ignored crit range, and came off as confrontational.
You didn't "show that at low levels the sickle is the better weapon compared to a dagger". It seems that you're completely ignoring every aspect of the weapons except the base damage. I've specifically addressed the sickle vs. dagger comparison in an earlier post.
If you consider all of the aspects of the dagger and sickle, consider your campaign, consider your character, and then decide that you prefer the sickle, I certainly respect your opinion. However, that is simply a personal preference for a specific situation and one should recognize that neither weapon is strictly 'better' in any mathematical sense.
We were talking about light melee weapons.
The fact that they where both light melee weapons where incidental, accidental and more importantly irrelevant.I was talking about weapons in general, and just so happened that the two examples where light melee weapons.
In that regard, the gladius, short sword, and dog slicer are the top (along with wakizashi, but that requires EWP or being a ninja).Actually, most two-weapon builds seem to use Kukri for crit range or Daggers for ranged opportunity. Check the DPR olympics and similar optimization threads.
For one handed melee weapons, scimitars cutlasses and rapiers take the cake followed closely by long swordsWait, didn't you say higher average damage dice = better weapon? Scimitars and rapiers have worse damage than longswords. Also, handedness is relevant how? A large bastard sword deals 2d8 damage.
2d8>2d6 (which is the next largest damage), thus the large bastard sword (and I assume dwarven war axe) is the best weapon in the game for medium-sized characters, with that logic. The best weapon, period.
Mainly I refuted 3 of your pointsUhm, no. I was wrong thinking sickles were one-handed weapons and then you claimed that the ranged ability of daggers is irrelevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
always wondered why folks have dwarves use axes so much--for people associated with earth and stone as often as they are, wouldn't the pick or hammer be more fitting (which they get as well, dont get me wrong)?
Because axes are the most effective weapon when fighting against the Dwarves' ancient ancestral enemy, a fearsome creature with a tough skin and hardy flesh. Those towering behemoths can reach heights of over 300 feet, and the largest have a girth of 100 feet! Picks barely make a dent against these creatures, and hammers simply bounce right off; you need the strong, chopping motion of an axe to fell these terrible beasts. I am talking, of course, about the dreaded tree.
The average DPR calculations take into account crit range. maybe you should have asked how I came up with average DPR numbers instead of assuming I ignored something. I'd rather make an honest mistake than assume somebody else is an idiot, which is exactly what you did.
The tone of your posts seems quite rude and confrontational, but I'll do exactly what you ask for:
Hey Bigdaddyjug, how did you come up with your average DPR calculations? How did you conclude that the sickle does almost 50% more damage than the dagger? Thanks!
Going strictly by numbers, it seems like axes are always a worse choice than swords, as long as you have a choice between the two. A longsword and battleaxe have the same damage die, but the longsword crits twice as often (a 100% improvement) while the battleaxe only crits for one more die (a 50% improvement).
It gets worse when you look at the greatsword and greataxe. 2d6, on average, will give you better sustained damage than 1d12, in addition to the crit advantage mentioned above. Am I missing something here, or are axes just mechanically inferior to swords?
The bold (emphasis mine) are your problems. This is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Not an MMO or computer game where the numbers and mechanical superiority are the only thing that matters.
Not everyone wants to use a sword. Don't listen to everyone flaunting optimization, DPR, and action economy in the face. Numbers aren't everything.
Sometimes, I want a really small character who uses a really big axe because there's a STORY behind it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Average DPR formula is:
h(d+p) + hdcm
h = chance to hit expressed as a % or decimal
d = average non-precise damage
p = average precise damage (sneak attack, flaming weapon, etc)
c = chance to crit expressed as a % or decimal
m = crit multiplier -1 (ie for longsword this is 1, for a longaxe it's 2, for a tetsubo it's 3)Then just plug the numbers in. what I did the first time was assume a level 1 character with a 50% chance to hit (+4 from Str and BAB of 1) but I forgot to add 4 to the avg damage of both weapons. When you do that, you get 1.8375 average DPR for the sickle, and 1.375 for the dagger. That's 34% more damage. Yes, I said "almost 50%" so that was a bit of hyperbole.
And I'm sorry if I sound confrontational. My posts are typed either very quickly while I'm at work or very concisely on my ipad.
Thanks. I now see where you are coming from, and feel that we can understand each other better.
Assumign the same attack bonus, static damage, and enhancements, the sickle will ALWAYS do more damage than the dagger.
Here I will have to disagree with the big capitalized ALWAYS. Weapons with higher crit range scale better with static damage bonuses.
For example, we'll use the assumptions and math you posted:
h=0.5
p=0
m=1
c=0.1
DPR=11.825
c=0.05
DPR=11.8125
Okay, the Dagger can do more average damage than the sickle, at high static damage bonuses. +19 is pretty high, so it's largely irrelevant until higher levels.
c=0.2
DPR=6.9
c=0.1
DPR=6.875
Here we see that the Keen Dagger can easily have more average damage than the Keen Sickle, with just a +9 static damage bonus.
Conclusion...
Dagger PROS: more damage with +19 damage bonus and above, more damage with Keen at +9 damage and above, can be piercing or slashing to get around DR, can be hidden more easily on body, can be ranged, higher crit range for crit effect feat activation, cheaper, lighter, may fit flavor concept
Sickle PROS: more damage at low levels with less than 19 damage bonus, more damage with keen if still less than 9 damage bonus, trip weapon quality (can choose to drop weapon instead of fall prone if fail trip by 10+), may fit flavor concept
Depending on which situation you are in, you may prefer either weapon. Heck, some characters may switch between the two midway through their adventuring career. I maintain that neither weapon is strictly "better" than the other in a mathematical sense.
Theres also still a huge difference between 33% and 50%.
Id also like to add that +9 damage is easily accessible at 4th level and +19 is around at level 8-10 for martiäals depending on class. So it isnt very late levels were talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Valantrix1
"Because, contrary to popular belief, some of us don’t think it’s all about the numbers. I pick out a concept for my character, and then I stick to it. Do I try and maximize my productivity within my concept? Hell yes, but I don’t compromise my idea to get a paltry extra few points of damage here or there."
Thank you Valantrix1. I think this should be the true answer.
Since Pathfinder arrived(as I never perused the 3.0/3.5 forums) I've seen tons of combat mathematics. Is this wrong? Not in my opinion, but where's the flavor?If you always theorycraft out a character to deal as much damage as possible, are a lot of your characters similar?
I like to have an effective character, combat-wise, but I've never personally sacrificed flavor for raw damage. And maybe you don't either. Maybe your crit build falcata guy has a lot of flavor.
When I play, I'm constantly envisioning my character in combat. While the sword was designed specifically for warfare, to me there's just something nastier about being chopped with an axe, or having your ribs cracked by a big, nasty hammer.
I love creating characters. I love every aspect, because as the stats are added, and the weapons and armor are written in on the character sheet, then the rest of the basic adventuring gear, my character comes alive. Moreso with skills and feats. I usually have at least one full page of character background, including family/friends/loved ones/contacts, etc. This is also where weapons and/or combat style comes in.
If the character likes swords, he'll use swords. If he likes maces, he'll use them. I worry more about character flavor and style up front before damage ever wanders into my mind.
That's just me. I DM every Sunday, and there have been several where we didn't roll a die in combat the entire day.
THIS! 100%
I stopped coming to Paizo for the LONGEST time simply because the Advice Forum is all about numbers with little to no regard for character concept. So sick of the DPR OPTIMIZERS telling players: "Oh, you wanted to play a [fill in base class with weapon option idea]?? Pssh, you should be taking [Base Class] plus a dip in [Another Class] and also [Another More Different Class] and don't use the weapon you said, that doesn't have enough damage/crit/whatever, you should be using [Forum Approved Weapon "A"]
I'm all for advice, but when the final "product" has no resemblance to the initial idea, there is a problem.
For Example: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pqqg?Rogues-and-Armor
Posts by BBT and Atarlost
|
I am running an 18th Level Dwarven Barbarian. He started at 3rd level and I have kept him going for the last 7 years. Have not done anything but the Barbarian Class.
His favorite quote: "MY AXE IS THE ANSWER !!!!!!" and it is.
Once he ran and slid between the front legs of a dragon, chopped his way in and then proceeded to hack his way out from the inside. (Much lower AC from the inside you know.)