Quori, so what you are telling me is: precision damage alters how threat ranges perform? Because we both know they dont. Precision damage factors out of the equation completely. Whether I critical with a weapon that is x2 or x4 the precision damage doesnt care.
Regarding 3PP: you argue intimate a point that is based on 3PP without at the very least announcing that it is based on material found outside of Pathfinder (something you failed to do).
- Gauss
Now now, let's not get testy. You did fail to say were were only using non-3PP material.
In any case, I already agreed you get a bonus just under 15%. If you're looking to 'win' some kind of other argument, I am unaware of it.
Clean damage aside, consistency, damage regulation, keeping the additional feat, and several other points already made would still have me sway towards the range modifier.
Again, I've already said it, but if it makes you feel better:
"19-20 x3 weapons have more damage output over 18-20 x2 weapons", Quori
Consequently, I still favour the multitude of additional benefits a higher range provides over the flashy extra damage. If you're looking to work hard to convert a much needed person to the x3 camp, you'll have to make a case against another poster...
Sorry, I just get annoyed when someone argues a point about something without announcing that they are operating using house rules or 3PP. This IS a PF RPG forum rather than the 3PP forum.
- Gauss
You are right, and I was only thinking of core material for defining damage. When you called me out on additional modifiers, I honestly can't think of any within core. I did want to mention that there's a pluthora of things that may apply, as I am interested in 3PP material.
I do concur with your math though, and I am thankful for your help. I am now more informed on the crit damage outputs and it will help me in the future if I have to make this decision.
Honestly, I appreciate your help.
No worries, Im calm. :) Water under the bridge so to speak.
- Gauss
I decided to do math because why not.
This just assumes that they hit regardless of AC (and even on a 1), and as such may be screwy. Also, assumes the damage done is ALWAYS 1. It also assumes that they roll every possible face on the d20 (and also confirm criticals).
20/2x (21)
19-20/2x (22)
18-20/2x (23)
20/3x (22)
19-20/3x (24)
20/4x (23)
As for Improved Critical/Keen:
19-20/2x (22)
17-20/2x (24)
15-20/2x (26)
19-20/3x (24)
17-20/3x (28)
19-20/4x (26)
And now... Those oddballs that can increase the multiplier
20/3x (22)
19-20/3x (24)
18-20/3x (26)
20/4x (23)
19-20/4x (26)
20/5x (24)
... And with Improved Critical/Keen
19-20/3x (24)
17-20/3x (28)
15-20/3x (32)
19-20/4x (26)
17-20/4x (32)
19-20/5x (28)
In conclusion, I believe the best critical threat range is the 19-20/3x (Falcata), which explains it's Exotic status. If you can manage to get the increased multiplier for a critical, then any of the weapons that have a 18-20/2x critical become just as good.
... Or you could just play the game and have fun :| Either way, your call.
Overkill is just too likely on the high crit multiplier weapons, especially at low levels. At low levels creatures can only take a few hits before dropping, which makes high crit multipliers unneeded, perhaps even on the first hit.
I don't crit. I just don't.
When I wield a crossbow(19-20/x2), I roll 18's all night, or I miss by a mile. If I roll a nat 20, it's on a skill check or a saving throw, never an attack roll. The only '19' attack rolls I ever roll are when I've got a x3 or x4 weapon.
I don't even bother looking at the crit range/multiplier when I choose my weapon. I'll write it down for the sake of completeness, but the only time I ever look at it again is to be reminded that no, a 19 is not a crit for this weapon.
I tink I gotz a doppppeg...doplleegr...guy whoz jus like me.
Seriously, whenever I need to make a skill check, I'm good (unless it's a clutch skill check, then Fate hates me). Even with a crit range of 17-20 I'll never roll higher than 16 lol
The critical hit deck favors the increased range. While I am good at math, I also realize that those cards are FUN, and you want to pull them often.
I suspect theY are slightly more powerful, but making that calculation involves ruining the surprise.
My input? Range. Had a barbarian (Ironborn named Wrath), with a keen nodachi (1d10 15-20X2). The damage output was not ridiculous, but it was high and very consistent.
On which note, where's the bastard scimitar? 1d8, 18-20x2.
Literally, it's exactly like a bastard sword (two-handed martial, one-handed exotic) with 1d8/18-20.
I prefer the heavy multiplier.
A 18-20/x2 weapon will wound an enemy on a crit (much like any other attack). A 20/x4 weapon will end the fight entirely on a crit.
Actually, I'd carry one of both types (unless going 19/x3 keened... many GMs dislike the Falcata)
A keen 18/x2 works wonders for these Critical Feats of mine.
A 20/x4 is what I (quick)draw if there is something to CdG, or if my pal just lets me inherit his crit via Butterfly Sting
Why settle for one when you can have both? *ducks and runs*
So here is my question. What is better. Improved Crit or Keen?
Say you have an extra feat in your build. Is it better to take the feat or to sack a +1 to keen... assuming of course you can afford a +10 weapon at the same time as you have the opportunity to take the feat.
Is an extra +1 weapon modification = to a feat or not?
So here is my question. What is better. Improved Crit or Keen?
Say you have an extra feat in your build. Is it better to take the feat or to sack a +1 to keen... assuming of course you can afford a +10 weapon at the same time as you have the opportunity to take the feat.
Is an extra +1 weapon modification = to a feat or not?
A +1 attack/damage, potential increased ability to penetrate DR and improved hardness/hp of your weapon is worth the feat if you can afford it.
a high crit might slightly work in favor against powerful, hard to hit opponents since you might miss after your first attack on a potential threat, a +4 to confirm on a critical threat might be especially useful in that case. on the basis of DPR it might in this case be a better BBEG killer than a high threat range. The occasional coupe de grace or automatic crit is beneficial too.
Usually the increased threat range has the benefit though, especially considering critical feats and abilities or the possibility of wasted DPR on overkill.
Personally I like critical hits to be a bit more rare and have more impact when it happens rather than having it occur a few times every battle. Unexpected glory moments are nicer than expecting to get a crit and be disappointed frequently.
Kydeem de'Morcaine, the statistics do not lie. Whether the threats are 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 the damage per round is identical (for identical damage dice/size of weapon).
Now, that does not mean that critical builds would not benefit more from a weapon that criticals more. That is a modfication to how the weapons are used (the statistics). Not all DPR builds are based on critical builds (in fact, I would say few are).
- Gauss
Edit: I am defining 'critical build' as the critical focus tree. Improved Critical is not a 'critical build' as that is really just a DPR build.
I have to disagree, Gauss...
The average results can be statistically similar (I did not make the math), but from a distribution point of view the two situations have very different behaviors... When you add two dice you get something like a Triangle distribution. But when you add four dice you get something closer to a Gaussian distribution. There is a higher probability of getting more extreme values with 2 dice than with 4...
Of course, the Triangle and Gaussian distributions are Continuous and Dice-rolling produces a Discrete one, but it is the same idea...
100% thread range, as there might just be that monster that I can only hit on a critical.
Crit multiplier is more for fun builds, when I want my GM to explain to me what happens to that lvl 1 goblin that just took 300 damage.
100% thread range, as there might just be that monster that I can only hit on a critical.
Umm... you are aware that you can miss, even if your die comes up with a critical threat number?
The only auto-hit (plus threaten) number on that d20 is a natural 20. If your +7 attack vs. AC 30 shows a 19, you missed - your keen scimitar won't help you a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kydeem de'Morcaine, the statistics do not lie. Whether the threats are 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 the damage per round is identical (for identical damage dice/size of weapon).
Now, that does not mean that critical builds would not benefit more from a weapon that criticals more. That is a modfication to how the weapons are used (the statistics). Not all DPR builds are based on critical builds (in fact, I would say few are).
- Gauss
Edit: I am defining 'critical build' as the critical focus tree. Improved Critical is not a 'critical build' as that is really just a DPR build.
I have to disagree, Gauss...
The average results can be statistically similar (I did not make the math), but from a distribution point of view the two situations have very different behaviors... When you add two dice you get something like a Triangle distribution. But when you add four dice you get something closer to a Gaussian distribution. There is a higher probability of getting more extreme values with 2 dice than with 4...
Of course, the Triangle and Gaussian distributions are Continuous and Dice-rolling produces a Discrete one, but it is the same idea...
You are correct if we were comparing 1d12 to 2d6 or 4d3. However, when comparing 1d6 to 1d6 it is the SAME. Across a 15-20/x2 vs a 19-20/x4 you are going to roll (from 15-20) a grand total of 12d6 dice (6*2d6) vs 12d6 dice (4*1d6+2*4d6 = 12d6). While the spikes of x4 are greater (which is the overkill discussion) the actual average DPR is identical. Neither of your distribution statements apply here.
- Gauss
Kydeem de'Morcaine, the statistics do not lie. Whether the threats are 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 the damage per round is identical (for identical damage dice/size of weapon).
Now, that does not mean that critical builds would not benefit more from a weapon that criticals more. That is a modfication to how the weapons are used (the statistics). Not all DPR builds are based on critical builds (in fact, I would say few are).
- Gauss
Edit: I am defining 'critical build' as the critical focus tree. Improved Critical is not a 'critical build' as that is really just a DPR build.
j
I have to disagree, Gauss...
The average results can be statistically similar (I did not make the math), but from a distribution point of view the two situations have very different behaviors... When you add two dice you get something like a Triangle distribution. But when you add four dice you get something closer to a Gaussian distribution. There is a higher probability of getting more extreme values with 2 dice than with 4...
Of course, the Triangle and Gaussian distributions are Continuous and Dice-rolling produces a Discrete one, but it is the same idea...
I
You are correct if we were comparing 1d12 to 2d6 or 4d3. However, when comparing 1d6 to 1d6 it is the SAME. Across a 15-20/x2 vs a 19-20/x4 you are going to roll (from 15-20) a grand total of 12d6 dice (6*2d6) vs 12d6 dice (4*1d6+2*4d6 = 12d6). While the spikes of x4 are greater (which is the overkill discussion) the actual average DPR is identical. Neither of your distribution statements apply here.- Gauss
Now, I got you. You are, of course, adding the dice of "regular" damage in order to make both distributions comparable. You are absolutely Right!
I just love this kind of Discussions! :-)
Kydeem de'Morcaine, the statistics do not lie. Whether the threats are 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 the damage per round is identical (for identical damage dice/size of weapon).
Now, that does not mean that critical builds would not benefit more from a weapon that criticals more. That is a modfication to how the weapons are used (the statistics). Not all DPR builds are based on critical builds (in fact, I would say few are).
- Gauss
Edit: I am defining 'critical build' as the critical focus tree. Improved Critical is not a 'critical build' as that is really just a DPR build.
I have to disagree, Gauss...
The average results can be statistically similar (I did not make the math), but from a distribution point of view the two situations have very different behaviors... When you add two dice you get something like a Triangle distribution. But when you add four dice you get something closer to a Gaussian distribution. There is a higher probability of getting more extreme values with 2 dice than with 4...
Of course, the Triangle and Gaussian distributions are Continuous and Dice-rolling produces a Discrete one, but it is the same idea...
I
You are correct if we were comparing 1d12 to 2d6 or 4d3. However, when comparing 1d6 to 1d6 it is the SAME. Across a 15-20/x2 vs a 19-20/x4 you are going to roll (from 15-20) a grand total of 12d6 dice (6*2d6) vs 12d6 dice (4*1d6+2*4d6 = 12d6). While the spikes of x4 are greater (which is the overkill discussion) the actual average DPR is identical. Neither of your distribution statements apply here.- Gauss
Now, I got you. You are, of course, adding the dice of "regular" damage in order to make both distributions comparable. You are absolutely right!
Got to love a good statistically inclined discussion. :-)
Crit range is always a better option, numerically.
1/20 * avg. damage * 4 + 19/20 * avg. damage < 3/20 * avg. damage * 2 + 17/20 * avg. damage. You are three times as likely to get a crit while doing only half as much damage. This is the argument made over the long stretch.
Even in short term, two crits from your 18-20 x2 weapon will do the same damage as one from the 20 x4 weapon.
On the other hand... critting with a heavy pick does involve a very satisfying number of dice!
Well, the problem w/ that logic is that only a 20 is an automatic hit and, in my experience, even if you have a full BAB, you're still needing to roll 15s or better to hit/confirm (against particularly strong enemies, you'll need to roll even higher, obviously).
Let's assume you're using a D8 weapon in both cases w/ 20 strength (1-handed, no feats to increase damage just to keep it simple)
AVGDMG = (1+8)/2+5 = 9.5
20 x4 = (1/20)*0.3*AVGDMG*4+(1/20)*0.7*AVGDMG+(5/20)*AVGDMG = 3.28
18-20 x2 = (1/20)*0.3*AVGDMG*2+(1/20)*0.7*AVGDMG+(2/20)*0.3*AVGDMDG*2+(2/20)*0.7*AVGDM G+(3/20)*AVGDMG = 3.28
Mathematically speaking, as long as the required die roll to hit/confirm is outside of your critical range, they will both have the same average damage per roll. The problem w/ a lower multiplier, higher range is keen/improved critical is more effective on the higher multiplier, lower range weapon against those big bad evil guys, where you need to roll a lot higher to hit, so a lot of your keen/improved critical range bonus goes down the drain on that low multi/high range weapon(s).
Noobxqb, I absolutely agree with you. I even made that statement somewhere along the way. When I crunch DPR (in an excel file) I actually have a limit in the critical hit portion of the calculations where the threat % cannot exceed the attack %.
- Gauss
So here is my question. What is better. Improved Crit or Keen?
Say you have an extra feat in your build. Is it better to take the feat or to sack a +1 to keen... assuming of course you can afford a +10 weapon at the same time as you have the opportunity to take the feat.
Is an extra +1 weapon modification = to a feat or not?
Personally, I'd rather take the feat (especially if you're a fighter) for a couple of reasons. If you lose your keen weapon (i.e. break it, it gets stolen, you drop it down a trench, it gets sundered, etc.), it's going to cost you a lot more money to replace it. For example, one of my party members in a previous campaign spent ALL of his money on a keen +3 Halberd only to have it destroyed by a group of rust monsters the next session. The difference between a +3 weapon and a +3 weapon w/ keen is 14,000 GP and, at level 9, 14000 GP was about 1/3 of his accumulated gold.
If you're a feat-starved class and your DM isn't a jerk, I can see making a case for keen. Also, if you use several types of weapons, obviously keen is the way to go (even if pricey).
Another thing to consider is that keen only applies to piercing and slashing weapons whereas improved critical applies to all 3 types of damage (and bows).
Obviously, if you're a 2-weapon fighter using the same weapon in both hands (or a double weapon), improved critical is always the way to go.
Unless Im a fighter Id rather not take the feat or permanently add keen edge to my weapon. I would rather pay for a wizard to cast keen edge a couple times a day (perhaps buy him some Pearls of Power III) or use something like Scabbard of Keen Edge. This way I can benefit from both the keen edge and the +1attack/damage I would normally have.
- Gauss
|
Let's assume you're using a D8 weapon in both cases w/ 20 strength (1-handed, no feats to increase damage just to keep it simple)
AVGDMG = (1+8)/2+5 = 9.5
20 x4 = (1/20)*0.3*AVGDMG*4+(1/20)*0.7*AVGDMG+(5/20)*AVGDMG = 3.28
18-20 x2 = (1/20)*0.3*AVGDMG*2+(1/20)*0.7*AVGDMG+(2/20)*0.3*AVGDMDG*2+(2/20)*0.7*AVGDM G+(3/20)*AVGDMG = 3.28Mathematically speaking, as long as the required die roll to hit/confirm is outside of your critical range, they will both have the same average damage per roll. The problem w/ a lower multiplier, higher range is keen/improved critical is more effective on the higher multiplier, lower range weapon against those big bad evil guys, where you need to roll a lot higher to hit, so a lot of your keen/improved critical range bonus goes down the drain on that low multi/high range weapon(s).
You may be interested in a recent post I made in a different thread about critical hit calculations
Using the terminology in that post, C would be 0.05*3, or 0.15, for the 20/x4 weapon, and 0.15*1 (also 0.15) for the 18-20/x2 weapon. W would be the expected weapon damage, or 9.5 (the average damage) multiplied by 30% (the probability of a hit).
That would make the total expected damage from either of these weapons
(1 + C)*W = 1.15*9.5*0.3, which matches the 3.28 you show above
James, I disagree with you. Except during an outdoor adventure 150minutes is usually quite long enough to run through all your resources in a dungeon. Most adventuring days run 3-4 combats. Thus, buffing up with 10min/level durations is easily doable in a dungeon scenario without running into action economy issues.
Regarding Greater Magic Weapon, it does not bypass DR.
- Gauss
In my experience, large critical multipliers are not that great anyway... They usually end up being overkill. And while they can statistically deal the same damage (or maybe even greater damage) than an weapon with broader critical threat range, it doesn't matter unless the target is at near full HP.
So, you deal 20 damage and the enemy has 40HP or less, it doesn't really matter if you multiply your damage by 2 or by a thousand. It dies anyway.
Unless the enemy has way too many HP and/or a very high DR (which can probably be bypassed in other ways) that large multiplier won't be doing much for you. Even if it is so cool.
So I'll pick threat range over critical multiplier anytime. Even more so if we consider critical effects feats and vorpal blades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ever since I crit with a scythe on a hobgoblin and sliced him in half from crotch to crown, I have favored the x4 crit weapons. Doesn't matter if they crit less often - that one BIG crit satisfies me for years and years afterward.
Critical effects great, Vorpal blade not so much. It only activates on a natural 20 (and then confirmed) not just a crit.So I'll pick threat range over critical multiplier anytime. Even more so if we consider critical effects feats and vorpal blades.
Ah, indeed... It has been so long since I actually used a Vorpal blade I didn't even remember... (+5 enhancement bonus is a bit expensive when dice hate you!)
James Maissen: the spell decription of Greater Magic Weapon specifically states that it does not allow you to bypass DR of anything except for DR/magic.
This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.
- Gauss
James, No worries, I miss stuff too.
I do not know if it has been there since the first printing or not. The earliest incarnation I have seen is second and it was there for that iirc (I do not have a copy of 2nd printing anymore though to confirm/deny it).
If GMW did bypass DR (other than magic) I would certainly agree with your statement about making a weapon keen. In fact, I would put everything BUT enhancement bonuses on a weapon if GMW did that. Since it doesn't I reccomend enhancement bonuses primarily in order to bypass DR.
- Gauss
A specific corner case for the large multiplier:
a Barbarian with the Raging Deathblow feat, any crits putting foe to -1 or less hit points gains additional rage. This would be even more true with rage cycling and Mighty Swing!!
100% thread range, as there might just be that monster that I can only hit on a critical.Umm... you are aware that you can miss, even if your die comes up with a critical threat number?
The only auto-hit (plus threaten) number on that d20 is a natural 20. If your +7 attack vs. AC 30 shows a 19, you missed - your keen scimitar won't help you a bit.
Right , so late game , wouldnt you be theoretically facing more enemies with AC higher than 20, therefore completely negating the need for a larger threat range? If a creature has AC 20 or higher, only a natural 20 is going to crit anyways.
And from what ive seen, most CR 5 and up have at least that much AC.What are peoples thoughts on that with the long game in mind? For exampleif you were going to spend a feat on weapon focus. You would want that to be aplicable early and late game right?