SpoCk0nd0pe's page

Over time and all other things being equal (keen or not, crit confirmation or not) the math is starkly in favor of the larger crit range over the larger multiplier so keen katana gives me the warm fuzzies. If you're an optimizer and you have a choice between say a d8(18-20(x2)) and a d8 (x4) the better choice is still the better crit range even over the whomping x4. It takes feats that help autoconfirm crits to make the x4 even in the same neighborhood as a larger crit range. Once you made both weapons keen its no contest. a 15-20 crit range far outperforms big modifiers over time.

That's not true.

Here is why (example 18-20/x2 vs 20/x4):
a= chance to hit (1>=a>0, 0.05|a)
d= damage you deal on a normal hit

20/x4:
You have a 1/20 chance rolling 20 on a d20 right? You still need to confirm your crit, then you do 3 times extra damage. So your extra damage from crits is 1/20*a*3*d right?

18-20/x2:
Now you have 3/20 chances to threaten with a crit right? You still need to confirm, then you do one time extra damage. So the extra damage from crits is 3/20*a*1*d

1/20*a*3*d=3/20*a*1*d

you can do the same thing with 19-20/x4 vs 15-20/x2

q.e.d

[edit]I think I know why your spreadsheet is flawed: If your weapon does x2 damage on crit, it only adds its damage one time (the other time it's base damage it would do anyways since you hit already). If your weapon does x4 damage on crit, it adds its damage three times.

It does not matter at all how often you have to confirm a critical hit. Even if you had to confirm every single point of damage, rolling 30+ dice the average outcome would not change.

It does if you consider critical focus. If you edit the values for critical focus into my calculations on greatsword vs falchion you will get a bonus damage value dependent on hit chance.