|
As it has been pointed out many times on these boards, some of the weapons -- often those that inflict 2D4 or 2D6 points of damage -- seem to be clearly superior to the other weapons. Falchion, Greatsword, Scythe and Spiked Chain have been the most popular weapons in my group (and several others, I'd dare to guess) -- not to mention that Falchion's lower crit range and the Spiked Chain's tripping ability are also "bonus" features to consider.
I'm suggesting that PF RPG could get rid of all 2DX damage ratings, and replace them with the closest equivalent die (also factoring in any special qualities and the crit range and multiplier).
My "new" stats for these four weapons would be thus:
* FALCHION 1D8 (18-20, X2)
* GREATSWORD 1D12 (19-20, X2)
* SCYTHE 1D8 (X4)
* SPIKED CHAIN 1D8 (X3)
This way they would make more sense (to me, at least) when compared to Halberd or Greataxe.
A couple of examples of other weapons that need a bit tweaking (or be included in the game) would be:
* MAUL 1D10 (X3)
* LONGSPEAR 1D10 (X3)
Thoughts?
|
Thoughts?
[Just using the greatswod as an example.]
Statistically speaking, changing the greatsword from 2d6 damage to 1d12 will increase the likelihood of getting large die rolls. If I follow what you're saying, that isn't what you want since that would make it even more superior to other weapons.
For a greatsword, the chances of rolling 12 on 2d6 is (1/6)^2 = 0.0277... => ~2.78% of the time. Rolling 12 on a 1d12 is (1/12) = 0.0833... => ~8.33% of the time. On the other hand, those %'s are the same for rolling a 2 on 2d6 or 1 on a 1d12.
Additionally, since you rolling 2 d6's, you're more likely to get values that are "average" (6-8) for the greatsword than you are with a single d12 (where all the values have an equal chance of showing up). Someone else can post the probability table - I'm too lazy right now).
Hope that helps.
-Skeld
|
|
[More bored and less lazy than I thought.]
.
.
.
.
% chance of rolling a __ with 2d6:
2 = 2.78
3 = 5.56
4 = 8.33
5 = 11.11
6 = 13.89
7 = 16.67
8 = 13.89
9 = 11.11
10 = 8.33
11 = 5.56
12 = 2.78
With a d12, you have a 8.33% chance of rolling any integer value between 1 - 12.
Also, with 2dX, you won't roll a 1 for damage.
-Skeld
|
|
Thoughts?[Just using the greatswod as an example.]
Statistically speaking, changing the greatsword from 2d6 damage to 1d12 will increase the likelihood of getting large die rolls. If I follow what you're saying, that isn't what you want since that would make it even more superior to other weapons.
For a greatsword, the chances of rolling 12 on 2d6 is (1/6)^2 = 0.0277... => ~2.78% of the time. Rolling 12 on a 1d12 is (1/12) = 0.0833... => ~8.33% of the time. On the other hand, those %'s are the same for rolling a 2 on 2d6 or 1 on a 1d12.
Additionally, since you rolling 2 d6's, you're more likely to get values that are "average" (6-8) for the greatsword than you are with a single d12 (where all the values have an equal chance of showing up). Someone else can post the probability table - I'm too lazy right now).
Hope that helps.
-Skeld
Yes, I'm aware of that -- I think some min-maxing guide listed the Greatsword as the best weapon in 3E because of its highest average damage rolls. The thing is, the low and high results are often irrelevant to players, because crits and stacking up the bonuses is much more important. And, as we both noted, 2DX in general provides better average results.
I feel 1DX would make greatsword, scythe, flachion and others more "balanced" in relation to the other weapons, and make such weapons as Greataxe or Greatspear feel a lot "better" than they do now.
|
|
... I think some min-maxing guide listed the Greatsword as the best weapon in 3E because of its highest average damage rolls.
The expected value (mean) of 2d6 is 7. The expected value of 1d12 is 6.5. So, by using 2d6 instead of 1d12, you're buying yourself a half point of damage per hit over a large sample set (statistically speaking). In more realistic terms, that's 1 point every-other hit. Even crit'ed that's only 2 points.
The min-max'ers like greatsword not because of the damage dice, but because it's 2-handed and deals double Str damage and power attack penalty damage. The difference in damage dice are functionally irrelevant your damage roll looks something like 2d6+28* at 10th level.
That being said, I don't think it's worth chancing the rules for a difference of a half-point of damage per hit.
Good discussion though.
-Skeld
* - +28 = 12 [Str 22] + 2 [weapon enhancement] + 4 [weapon specialization] + 10 [5-point PA].
I understand were you are going with this...
But I gotta tell you if the Scythe gets changed to 1D8 (x4) it would be absolutely useless when compared to a Long Sword. Yes, statistically a threat range of 19-20 trumps a modifier increase of two points.
If that was your sole intention (making the Scythe useless), I say "Hell No!" to your change.
But if you are seriously trying to improve the weapons, there is more work involved than just changing the die code.
Nope, a higher modifier is slightly better than a bigger thread range.
See this page
Huh.
Then the math works differently than my data collection. Must be that dice never seem to follow the law of averages.
They do, but you usually don't notice if any rolls are not unusual.
|
|
... I think some min-maxing guide listed the Greatsword as the best weapon in 3E because of its highest average damage rolls.The expected value (mean) of 2d6 is 7. The expected value of 1d12 is 6.5. So, by using 2d6 instead of 1d12, you're buying yourself a half point of damage per hit over a large sample set (statistically speaking). In more realistic terms, that's 1 point every-other hit. Even crit'ed that's only 2 points.
The min-max'ers like greatsword not because of the damage dice, but because it's 2-handed and deals double Str damage and power attack penalty damage. The difference in damage dice are functionally irrelevant your damage roll looks something like 2d6+28* at 10th level.
That being said, I don't think it's worth chancing the rules for a difference of a half-point of damage per hit.
Good discussion though.
-Skeld
* - +28 = 12 [Str 22] + 2 [weapon enhancement] + 4 [weapon specialization] + 10 [5-point PA].
Yet Greataxe is a two-handed weapon, too, and I really have to wrack my brain to remember the last time (a dwarf barbarian, I think?) a PC used it in my group. Maybe it's because 2D6 "feels" better, and, you crit twice as often with a greatsword than a greataxe? You are correct that X3 crits with a greataxe inflict as much damage over time.
It's a bit funny, because scythe seems to be picked for its higher crit multiplier just to get those hefty X4 bonuses on a crit, but greatxe (in my experience) tends to get ignored "because you don't crit so often with it". I don't think it's a "thematic" choice, because the same players seem to be fine with their burly half-orcs wielding scythes.
You are correct that the difference in dice is irrelevant, but the crit multiplier and crit range become more and more important as you rack up your damage bonuses. And that is why I'd like to "reduce" the damage to 1D8 with any weapon that either has a lucrative crit range or crit modifier -- it would make each PC think about choosing a scythe over greataxe at lower levels (in which the impact would be bigger than at higher levels).
Another reason why I'm suggesting this "tweak" is that there will be less rolling (i.e. less dice involved in every damage roll), which is one of the design goals.
|
|
Thing is, Falchion is balanced to Greatsword, just as Scimitar is balanced to Longsword and Great Scimitar is balanced to Bastard Sword.
To get rid of the 2dx for the falchion, you'd have to make it 1d10.
And 1D10 (18-20, X2) Falchion would be balanced to spears and polearms? Or mauls, morningstars and such? I think we need to think about *all* the weapons, and I don't think those "problematic" weapons are balanced to them at the moment (hence the surprisingly many falchion or scythe wielders in many groups).
|
|
I understand were you are going with this...
But I gotta tell you if the Scythe gets changed to 1D8 (x4) it would be absolutely useless when compared to a Long Sword. Yes, statistically a threat range of 19-20 trumps a modifier increase of two points.
If that was your sole intention (making the Scythe useless), I say "Hell No!" to your change.
But if you are seriously trying to improve the weapons, there is more work involved than just changing the die code.
Does it? Why, then, so many PCs seem to favor scythe over the greatsword, i.e. 2D4/X4 vs. 2D6 19-20/X2? The only reason I can come up with is the crit multiplier.
Yes, I'm seriously trying to improve the weapons, but any "major" changes to how they mechanically work may not be "backwards compatible" enough. I think my suggestions would make those "problematic" (which they are, since a lot of DMs seem to complain those weapons becoming PC favourites) weapons more balanced to the rest of the weapons (so that I would once again see a PC fighter using a long sword or a longspear for a change).
The thing is, in my opinion long sword *should* be just as good as the scythe, or even better. In 3E it was pretty much a "meh!" weapon that was more or less only used by elven wizards (spending a Feat on the bastard sword was more worth it for the versatily and bigger damage die). Warhammer, spears, morning star, heavy flail... you would only use them for "flavour" reasons -- statistically they're all inferior to the "problematic" weapons.
Also, I *have* suggested that the weapon type and size would play a larger role in PF RPG (e.g. all polearms would grant you +2 to CMB if you try to trip an enemy, or that you get +2 to 'Stunning Critical' DC with bludgeoning weapons). I even suggested (on the Alpha threads) that all natural 20s would inflict a "condition" (e.g. 'bleeding' with slashing weapons, or 'dazed' with bludgeoning weapons) on the target.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
The other thing to consider when comparing crit ranges vs. crit multipliers is the hps of the target. This is something the math doesn't take into accout often. If you do x4 crit on your target, let's say you do 60 damage for the sake of argument. If the target only has 30 hp left, then you're wasting your multiples of x3 and x4 on that target.
Because of this, I tend to prefer high crit ranges over high crit multipliers. It's definately cool to be able to do 100 hp or more in a crit, but too often those rare crits happen when the target only needs a x2 to take down.
|
|
The other thing to consider when comparing crit ranges vs. crit multipliers is the hps of the target. This is something the math doesn't take into accout often. If you do x4 crit on your target, let's say you do 60 damage for the sake of argument. If the target only has 30 hp left, then you're wasting your multiples of x3 and x4 on that target.
Because of this, I tend to prefer high crit ranges over high crit multipliers. It's definately cool to be able to do 100 hp or more in a crit, but too often those rare crits happen when the target only needs a x2 to take down.
Well, you could Cleave, right? At higher levels, when typical adversaries have 150+ HPs that 60 points is not very much for a crit (at least for a fighter or a barbarian). You see, in my experience players most often tend to lean toward two kinds of "melee builds":
1) DEX-based build that specializes in critting often. This build min-maxes the crit range (e.g. using a rapier/falchion with Improved Critical) at the expense of higher damage bonus.
2) STR-based build that min-maxes the damage bonus, and uses a X3/X4 weapon to get as much "oomph" from crits as only possible.
Generally speaking, I don't think a lot of players would feel that you "waste" damage on crits (players love gory DM descriptions! ;) -- crits against constructs and undead is another matter, and it feels especially frustrating if your character's "knack" is to crit often or for high damage.
|
|
Not a big fan of this idea for a couple of reasons reasons.
1 If you introduce this change you will have to rework vast areas of the weapons chart
2 all the items that are none open content that use multiple dice.
1) Not so much -- mainly for the polearms and the weapons listed above.
2) I don't think we need to stress overmuch about it -- most PF groups I know won't be using any 3E splat books (and are not using them in their playtest campaigns). Having said that, I understand that many groups *will* be using them, and therefore backwards compatibility is important. Still, it should not be a reason not to "update" or "tweak" something that many people feel is "broken" or "problematic" -- after all, one of the design goals for PF RPG is "evolving" the game and "fixing" as much of the "glitches" as only possible. What if there is a simple "formula" included in the rules for calculating the "new stats" for all non-OGL weapons?
|
|
Actually you would have to rewrite the weapons in there normal size. Then in there large size (since if you downgrade the damage you would have to downgrade the large versions damage as well) change the damage for small size and also change the size = weapon damage table for every other size category for those weapons.
Oh and what about things like monks unarmed strike? should that be changed so that instead of going to 2d6 it goes to 1d12?
|
|
But I gotta tell you if the Scythe gets changed to 1D8 (x4) it would be absolutely useless when compared to a Long Sword. Yes, statistically a threat range of 19-20 trumps a modifier increase of two points.
Nope, a higher modifier is slightly better than a bigger thread range.
See this page
Another nice page about weapon damage is found here
An interesting note about damage is that given the same amount of damage a critical of x3 does the same damage over time as a critical of 19-20/x2. The same goes for x4 and 18-20/x2. This is only true, however, as long as the target number to hit your enemy is less than the critical threat range. As soon as you need to roll a critical threat to hit weapons with smaller critical threat ranges do slightly more damage.
Freakin cool sites! Someone has more time than I do! Finally I can sit down and muchkin up a character to annoy my buddy who does it to me all the time.
I gotta tell you if the Scythe gets changed to 1D8 (x4) it would be absolutely useless when compared to a Long Sword.
Try using the two in actual combat and you'll soon see that a scythe IS useless compared to a long sword.
|
|
I am getting a headache just reading this thread...
I like the Scythe cause it is just COOL. The imagery of a dwarven fighter wielding a Scythe is just cooler than the same old battleaxe... and yes I wield an axe... *sigh* But come one, the Scythe just LOOKS cooler. :)
Images I see in my head are of opponents literally cut in half flung all over the battle field. That is just cool!
|
|
Actually you would have to rewrite the weapons in there normal size. Then in there large size (since if you downgrade the damage you would have to downgrade the large versions damage as well) change the damage for small size and also change the size = weapon damage table for every other size category for those weapons.
Oh and what about things like monks unarmed strike? should that be changed so that instead of going to 2d6 it goes to 1d12?
I much preferred the 3.0 weapons, because I think weapon size was a silly addition to the game. However, I think the simplest solution would be to use a modified system here, i.e. lower the basic die one step and use 2X modifier for it -- e.g. a large greatsword would inflict 2D10 damage and a large falchion or scythe 2D6.
The monk's unarmed damage could (and in my opinion *should*) use 1XD formula. I think it worked that way in AD&D (1E)?
|
|
Which is ironic since I thought the weapon size in 3.0 was silly (Yes have smiths who can make human size weapons but the idea of making a scythe or a greatsword or a greataxe that a halfling can use is beyond them.)
Anyway I dont see the point in making such large sweeping hanges in order to change on average 1 or 2 points of damage.
|
|
Which is ironic since I thought the weapon size in 3.0 was silly (Yes have smiths who can make human size weapons but the idea of making a scythe or a greatsword or a greataxe that a halfling can use is beyond them.)
Anyway I dont see the point in making such large sweeping hanges in order to change on average 1 or 2 points of damage.
Battleaxe and longsword -- both 2-handed weapons for halflings, and IIRC they have identical stats to Small Greatsword and Small Greataxe.
As I noted, this change would be about rolling less during combat, *and*, primarily, to make weapons more "balanced" to each other, i.e. so that more weapons beyond the handful few often mentioned on these boards would seem "appealing" to players.
By the way, I think that the double bonus on power attack with two handed weapons has been one of the greatest mistake of 3.5. This should have stayed like in 3.0. It's one of the things that gives two handed weapons too much efficiency compared to one handed weapon+shield and two weapon fighting.
|
|
By the way, I think that the double bonus on power attack with two handed weapons has been one of the greatest mistake of 3.5. This should have stayed like in 3.0. It's one of the things that gives two handed weapons too much efficiency compared to one handed weapon+shield and two weapon fighting.
I hope the new shield feats (and, possibly, other feats that may end up in PF RPG) will balance this out a bit, because in fact I *like* that you get double bonus to damage for power attacking with two-handed weapons. It just wasn't worth it to risk missing with your greatsword, for example, to get that +5 to damage in 3.0 (this is kind of balanced out if your wield a magical shield at higher levels, i.e. your AC is more or less equal to a character who wields a two-handed weapon)