Mostly, the "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" feat seems normally about as good as half a feat. Historically, you'll see stuff like:
- The elven longblade (or whatever), a one handed weapon that does 1d8 damage with a 18-20 threat range. Mechanically, this is either like a longsword with one extra "crit dot" (going from 2 to 3) or a rapier / scimitar with +1 average damage.
- The elven thinblade, a light weapon that does 1d6 damage with an 18-20 threat range- similar to above, but with comparisons to the light weapon versions of those (short sword / kukri).
- The bastard sword, which has +1 damage from what a longsword would.
- The "mercurial" line, which usually take an axe (two crit dots, both on the 20, so they are x3) and up them to x4 with one extra dot. Alternatively, these were the damage increased versions of picks and scythes.
Now, all of these are 3.X dudes. Pathfinder still has the baseline bastard sword, just like before.
My question is, has Pathfinder upped the stat budget on Exotic Weapon Proficiency?
The Falcata is in the APG, and in addition to its primary role of pissing off any history buff (why is this 1000 year older sword better than wholly superior swords if you take a feat?), it also has something no other weapon in all of Pathfinder (that *I* know of) has: 4 "crit dots". A weapon that only crits on a 20 has one "dot". Meaning that, if you roll that weapon a lot, you'll get extra damage equal to D- in this case, D is like 1x weapon damage that you get extra some times. A weapon with a 19-20 crit range, or a 20 x3 crit range, has double the "crit dots"- if you roll a longsword or a waraxe a lot, you'll get that amount D either twice as often, or you'll get to add 2D instead of 1D. Improved Critical doubles the number of "dots"- this feat is flat out better when applied to a x4 weapon or an 18-20 weapon, because it takes them from "three dots" to "six dots". An x4 weapon sometimes applied 3 times D- whereas an 18-20 weapon applies D three times as often as say, a club would have.
This is the first baseline weapon with FOUR "crit dots". Meaning, it applied 2D twice as often. With improved critical, it will have EIGHT crit dots, a record we haven't seen since the old bugged Bladed Gauntlet in the first printing of Sword and Fist.
This makes this useage of Exotic Weapon Proficiency about as good as Improved Critical, assuming you were looking to apply it to a Battleaxe. And of course, you can apply legit improved critical later.
Is this a new benchmark for the power level of the feat, or a one-off, or what?
Not sure what you mean by 'crit dots'.
It's like a longsword (1d8/19-20) except it has a *3 multiplier instead of *2.
Where's the benchmark?
I think you must be looking at an outdated book? The adventurers armory lists it as 1d8 19-20X3. I can't figure out what you're trying to state. If that is the stat line you are alluding to, yes it is an impressive weapon but weapons are measured against their base damage dice when created. I don't approve of that, but that is how it has been done for the last ten years.
Glutton wrote: I think you must be looking at an outdated book? The adventurers armory lists it as 1d8 19-20X3. I can't figure out what you're trying to state. If that is the stat line you are alluding to, yes it is an impressive weapon but weapons are measured against their base damage dice when created. I don't approve of that, but that is how it has been done for the last ten years. When my group saw the Falcata, it immediately became the newest 'no brainer' weapon to use for virtually every build they came up with. (with very few exceptions)
Tanis wrote: Not sure what you mean by 'crit dots'.
It's like a longsword (1d8/19-20) except it has a *3 multiplier instead of *2.
Where's the benchmark?
Yeah...and 19-20/x3 should be the same, damage wise, as 18-20/x2, no?
20/x2, 1 step takes it to 19-20/x2 or 20/x3, 1 more step takes it to 18-20/x2, 20/x4, or with the falcata, 19-20/x3.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
It is a bit odd that when the Core Book was still in Beta, one of the extra feats they talked about adding was a "Powerful Critical" critical feat (like Staggering Critical or Blinding Critical) that would increase your weapon's multiplier by +1, from x2, x3, or x4 to x3, x4, or x5. It was dropped before the final book as being too overpowered. It also had a prerequisites of Critical Focus, Improved Critical, and BAB +13.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (falcata) has no prerequisites except for BAB +1, and it can be used with other Critical Feats, even without Critical Mastery. True, you are limited to slashing damage only, but still, it's an increased multiplier accessible at 1st level instead of 13th, which was thought to be "too powerful".
19-20 x3 is better than 18-20 x2. Pretend you roll an 18, a 19, and a 20, with each weapon.
With the first weapon (the falcata), you'll deal X damage on the 18. Then 3x on the 19 (which is 2x more than without a crit), then 3x on the 20 (which is 2x more than without a crit). Your total damage over these three rolls is X+3X+3X= 7X. I call this a "four dot" weapon because the amount of extra damage you get from the crits is 4X.
With the second weapon (like a rapier, elven longblade, what have you), you'll deal 2X damage on the 18 (1X more than on a non-crit), then 2X damage on a 19 (1X more than on a non-crit), then 2X damage on a (1X more than on a non-crit) 20. Your total damage over these three rolls is 2X+2X+2X=6X. I call this a "three dot" weapon, because the amount of extra damage you get from crits is 3X.
A hypothetical weapon that NEVER crits would deal 1X, 1X, and 1X. That's 3X total. 7-3 = 4X extra for the falcata, 6-3 = 3X extra for the rapier, etc.
If you want it as a formula versus a target you have to roll a 15 or better to hit on (say), you have a 25% chance of hitting.
Hypothetical never crit weapon:
Total = .25X (it can't crit)
Club or crit-on-20 weapon:
.25X + .05(X*.25)=.2625X (it only crits 1/20 times 1/4 of the time, or 1/80 of the time, because you need 15 or better to confirm)
Longsword or traditional crit-on-19+20 weapon:
.25X + .10(X*.25)=.275X (it only crits 2/20 times 1/4 of the time, or 1/40 of the time, because you need 15 or better to confirm)
Axe or traditional crit-on-20-for-triple damage weapon:
.25X + .05(2X*.25)=.275X (it only crits 1/20 times 1/4 of the time, because you need a 15 or better to confirm, but it adds twice what a longsword does to a crit)
Ok, so note that a 20x3 does the same average damage as a 19-20x2. I know it seems unintuitive, but look at the *additional* damage done. An axe doesn't do NO damage on a 19- it just doesn't do double. You can't forget that 19!
Now a pick type weapon, 20x4, deals 3X additional damage on a crit:
.25X + .05(3X*.25)=.2875
Now a rapier type weapon, 18-20x2, deals 1x additional damage on a crit, but crits thrice as often as a pick or axe or club type weapon:
.25X + .15(X*.25)=.2875
So we can see that these guys are ALSO equivalent, over time.
Now the Falcata guy:
.25X + .10(2X*.25)=.3
In other words, this is as good as improved critical. The other uses of Exotic Weapon Profiency tend to take a weapon that adds an extra 2x over time (like 19-20 x2, or 20x3, both equivalent on average), and turn it into a weapon that adds an extra 3x over time (like 18-20 x3, or 20x4, both equivalent on average). This is a step above that.
I appreciate your calculations, but i wholeheartedly disagree.
In my experience the bigger the threat range, the more damage on average is inflicted.
Case in point is i ran an experiment of sorts back in 3.0 with a Weapon Master wielding a scythe which i compared with wielding a falchion.
From what i saw the falchion achieved much more consistent critical hits. When the scythe did critical tho, it was a game breaker.
YMMV.
Kvantum wrote: It is a bit odd that when the Core Book was still in Beta, one of the extra feats they talked about adding was a "Powerful Critical" critical feat (like Staggering Critical or Blinding Critical) that would increase your weapon's multiplier by +1, from x2, x3, or x4 to x3, x4, or x5. It was dropped before the final book as being too overpowered. It also had a prerequisites of Critical Focus, Improved Critical, and BAB +13. I had this as a feat in my original 3.0 games. The problem I ran into was probably the same ones these guys did. Improved Critical helps the 3 dot guys more than the 2 dot guys, for sure, because it doubles the dots. A longsword goes from critting on a 19-20 X2 (meaning 1X additional damage on two spots) into critting on 17-20 x2 (meaning 1X additional damage on four spots). 4 dots. An axe goes from critting at 20x3 (2X damage on one spot) to 19-20x3 (2X damage on two spots). 4 dots, same thing.
The baseline 3 dot guys (pick, scythe, rapier, scimitar) go to 6 dots. It's no secret that improved critical is better for them, and it's also no secret that players who chase crits pick the crit-chasing weapons, and then the crit-chasing feats.
But if you add to the *multiplier*, then that's not fair at all. First, take an axe. If you go from x3 to x4, you've added one dot. Now you have three. You can improved critical it out to six.
Or take the pick. If you go from x4 to x5, you've added one dot. Now you have four. You can improved critical it out to eight. This is more impressive, especially because a x5 critical is psycho-crazy.
Now take a longsword. It has 2 dots. If you go from x2 to x3, now it has 4 dots. You can double it to 8 dots with improved critical. This is pretty wicked, because you have four spots 2X additional damage (aka, 17-20 X3). This is also the Falcata with Improved Critical.
Now, take a SCIMITAR with this feat. It starts with 3 dots. If you go from x2 to x3, it now has 6 dots. Improved critical takes it to TWELVE. That's a LOT of powerful crits. That's 15-20 X3.
So the problem with adding one to the crit multiplier is that it's a totally different mathmatical operation from doubling the crit range. Doubling the crit range doubles the crit dots. Adding to the multiplier adds crit dots equal to the crit range, which means that it doubles the crit dots for something with an X2 to start with, but it's way worse for something with all the dots stacked on one number (like an X4 pick). It also has the disadvantage of going geometric when combined with improved crit.
Anyway, I don't think the Falcata is as exploitable as "add one to your multiplier", because I had that in a game, and it became pretty obvious that you were supposed to take a Falchion and go make Winburgers, and so I did the math and was like, oops, I'll have to change that next campaign :P
But it is along the same lines. And it does allow for 8 crit dots, which is the most, and it's definitely available from level 1, whereas you can't normally get to four crit dots until later (but to be fair, normally you get to SIX crit dots when you do get to them).
I'm just trying to figure out if this outlier is what Exotic Weapon Pro is supposed to buy you, or if it's just maybe someone thought that 19-20X3 was the same as 18-20X2 because they multiplied 2x3 and then 3x2 and thought, well, those are the same- forgetting entirely about the base damage, and the fact that the Falcata doesn't do NO damage on an 18, it just doesn't do double.
Tanis wrote: I appreciate your calculations, but i wholeheartedly disagree. Uh, you can't disagree with math? I mean, that's like disagreeing with gravity. If you need help I can do more calculations.
Quote: In my experience the bigger the threat range, the more damage on average is inflicted. Quote: Case in point is i ran an experiment of sorts back in 3.0 with a Weapon Master wielding a scythe which i compared with wielding a falchion. The 3.0 weapon master is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. He has two different mechanics:
1- At level 7, he gets "Ki Critical". This is Improved Critical if you are a monkey- if you are NOT a monkey, it's +2 to your threat range. This helps dramatically with a scythe, because it TRIPLES his crit dots.
2- At other levels (starting with level 2), he gets "Increased multiplier, 1/day", and that 1 increases. This lets him add one to the multiplier some number of times in a day. This helps dramatically with the falchion, not as much with the scythe.
I can assure you, without the weapon master mechanics goofing things up, the scythe and the falchion deal the same damage over time. Technically the scythe wins because a high AC opponent (one that takes, say, a 20 connect with) will reward the scythe with an occasional x4 hit and the falchion with only an x2). As to which to go with, I'd say the falchion- mostly because many of your x4 crits will be wasted, but your x2 crits will be less likely to be wasted and more likely to be telling. But damage wise over time, they are the same.
Quote: YMMV. No, we get the SAME mileage. That's how math WORKS.
cfalcon wrote: The 3.0 weapon master is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. He has two different mechanics:
1- At level 7, he gets "Ki Critical". This is Improved Critical if you are a monkey- if you are NOT a monkey, it's +2 to your threat range. This helps dramatically with a scythe, because it TRIPLES his crit dots.
2- At other levels (starting with level 2), he gets "Increased multiplier, 1/day", and that 1 increases. This lets him add one to the multiplier some number of times in a day. This helps dramatically with the falchion, not as much with the scythe.
I can assure you, without the weapon master mechanics goofing things up, the scythe and the falchion deal the same damage over time.
If you're applying the same mechanics to both weapons why would it goof up the math?
The falcata has had these stats since 3e I believe (if not, then 3.5e I'm positive). It's a heavy blade that has the power of an axe chop in it's attack.
Since we treat weapon use abstractly, we treat it as a longsword with an axe's multiplier.
The problem the OP is talking about is that it's not just another "step" in crit, because it is increasing both ends of the spectrum: the chance and the multiplier.
If you take the based crit of 20/x2, you have 5% chance of 200% damage. Mathematically, you can look at that as double damage on that portion of your chances to hit.
Effectively, dealing double damage on a 20 offsets the automatic miss (no damage) on a 1.
Total damage (assuming anything hits other than a 1) is 100%.
With 19-20/x2, you are looking at 10% of x2 damage, so 105% damage. 0.1 x 2 = 20%, 1 is a miss so you add 1x damage to the remaining 85%, so 85+20=105
And 20/x3 mathematically gives the same result: 105% damage.
With 18-20/x2, or 20/x4, you get another step higher: 110% damage.
However, when we get to the falcata, 19-20/x3, we see 115% damage. So, what should have been only "one" step (19-20/x2 going to 19-20/x3), we see "two" steps in damage increase.
With Improved Critical, this only gets magnified:
17-20/x2 or 19-20/x3: 115%
15-20/x2 or 19-20/x4: 125%
17-20/x3: 135%
Improved Critical doubles that extra step, so now it has 10% higher than it should.
This is the discrepancy the OP is talking about. For the same amount of "buck" it's getting more bang.
This is why they were very tentative to add big multiplier and big range weapons into the game. Even ones that had lower damage dice. In this case, the falcata even keeps the same damage dice.
If it had a -2 to hit penalty or some other similar "difficult to use" modifier, it would be more appropriate.
Then again, they've stated before that exotic weapons aren't statistically balanced on purpose, so I doubt we'll be getting a developer response on this other than "yeah, it's good, so?".
*Edit*
Ninja'd by the OP, heh. Oh well, maybe my math will help.
Kaisoku wrote: The problem the OP is talking about is that it's not just another "step" in crit, because it is increasing both ends of the spectrum: the chance and the multiplier. No it's not.
If it did it would be 18-20 *3
The standard for a martial weapon (going by greatsword/axe) is 19-20 *2 or 20 * 3.
This is either increasing the threat range by one or increasing the multiplier depending on which way you look at it.
Not both.
cfalcon wrote:
Uh, you can't disagree with math? I mean, that's like disagreeing with gravity. If you need help I can do more calculations.
This is indee, very true. One can disagree about how powerful can be the option, but not on the math about such option.
When I first saw falcata, I said: "What the..?" but maybe is less good than one can think, or at least less a no brainer.
The crit range, even with a keen one, is not 15-20, so a Longblade is better for a crit feat specialist. The Longblade is finessable, too. Other weapons, like Khopesh, are more suitable for control.
Of course, a bastard sword kinda disappers compared to the weapons above (even if has a more solid damage versus non-crittable enemies). But maybe is the bastard that is not worthy a feat.
@Tanis: I think that that's the point: a x3 for a BASE threat of 19 is HUGE. OP? I don't know.. but indeed quite strong.
Kaisoku wrote:
This is why they were very tentative to add big multiplier and big range weapons into the game. Even ones that had lower damage dice. In this case, the falcata even keeps the same damage dice.
Indeed, maybe a d6 of damage could have been good for balance things out. High damage output for flat damage, but lower for no-crit enemies and vital strike.
Minor point of clarity:
I think you mean the Elven Thinblade? I'm not familiar with a "longblade" on the weapon charts.
Rathendar wrote: Minor point of clarity:
I think you mean the Elven Thinblade? I'm not familiar with a "longblade" on the weapon charts.
There were longblade and thinblade in 3.5 somewhere
But I was thinking to the Curve Blade in pathfinder :P
My point remains the same (the weapons are more or less similar, with a similar "role").
Kaiyanwang wrote: Rathendar wrote: Minor point of clarity:
I think you mean the Elven Thinblade? I'm not familiar with a "longblade" on the weapon charts.
There were longblade and thinblade in 3.5 somewhere
But I was thinking to the Curve Blade in pathfinder :P
My point remains the same (the weapons are more or less similar, with a similar "role"). omg, talkback!
don't make me bring Pai and Yakumo in here!
/chuckle.
Tanis wrote: If you're applying the same mechanics to both weapons why would it goof up the math? Because it's not the same mechanics. When BOTH are applied, it adds up to the same- but that's because it was tweaked that way.
Lets assume you have a magical die that only rolls 13s and up. This doesn't mess with the math, but if you think it does, you can work it out for all the other numbers. They don't matter, because they are gonna do the same in both cases, as 12 and below will never crit.
The scythe and the falchion are both conveniently 2 handed weapons that deal 2d4 (well, the falchion is 2 handed here in DnD). They both have 3 crit dots. Lets assume that you always roll a 10 for damage. Perhaps your fighter has had a rough night of it!
You also always confirm critical hits. This also doesn't matter for the math, because any roll that doesn't confirm your scythe doesn't confirm your falchion, and vice versa.
We'll start out with him before he's a weapon master. His scythe crits x4 on a 20, and this falchion x2 on 18, 19, and 20.
When you roll a 13:
Scythe hits for 10.
Falchion hits for 10.
14:
S-10
F-10
15:
S-10
F-10
16:
S-10
F-10
17:
S-10
F-10
18:
S-10
F-20
19:
S-10
F-20
20:
S-40
F-20
Ok, add these up!
S-110
F-110
Super, they are the same.
Now, Improved Critical happens. This one doubles the crit dots: now everyone has 6 crit dots instead of three.
13:
S-10
F-10
14:
S-10
F-10
15:
S-10
F-20
16:
S-10
F-20
17:
S-10
F-20
18:
S-10
F-20
19:
S-40
F-20
20:
S-40
F-20
S: 140
F: 140
Again, they are the same. I'd judge the Falchion as better because it's gonna crit some guy at 15 for 40 and be overkill, and fail to crit the next guy at 15 and you'll have to take another swing- but against enough of a target, it's the same.
Now, the weapon master comes along. His mechanics apply asymetrically. First, lets look at what happens when we "add 2 to the threat range". Since the Scythe is only critting on 19 and 20, this DOUBLES its threat range. HUGE! Double crit dots. The Falchion, however, already crits on 6 spaces. Now it'll crit on 8. That's great, but it's an 8/6 = 4/3 increase, not as big:
Bolded the new stuff:
13:
S-10
F-20
14:
S-10
F-20
15:
S-10
F-20
16:
S-10
F-20
17:
S-40
F-20
18:
S-40
F-20
19:
S-40
F-20
20:
S-40
F-20
S: 200
F: 160
Whoa! As you can see, the scythe gets an additional 3X damage on 17 and 18. The Falchion gets an additional 1X damage on 13 and 14. One of these things is not like the other!
Now, lets rewind and instead apply just the +1 to the critical multiplier. The Weapon Master had limited use of this each day, which actually meant that the oft critting Falchion wielder would run out of Increased Multipliers while the Scythe wielder was still fishing for his 17+ roll to use it on. But, here's how THAT boils down, bolding the changes from the Improved critical guy (NOT the Ki critical table right above)
13:
S-10
F-10
14:
S-10
F-10
15:
S-10
F-30
16:
S-10
F-30
17:
S-10
F-30
18:
S-10
F-30
19:
S-50
F-30
20:
S-50
F-30
S: 160
F: 200
So here's what happened here: The Falchion weapon master managed to score a crit on the same squares as before, but each one deals 1X extra damage (2X more than a non crit). That means that while he was adding 10 damage to 15-20, now he's adding 20 damage to 15-20. That's double as much! The scythe weapon master still only crits on a 19-20, and instead of adding 30 to 10 and getting 40, he's adding 40 to 10 and getting 50. That's not as big of an increase.
And finally, the weapon master actually has BOTH of these effects at once:
13:
S-10
F-30
14:
S-10
F-30
15:
S-10
F-30
16:
S-10
F-30
17:
S-50
F-30
18:
S-50
F-30
19:
S-50
F-30
20:
S-50
F-30
S: 240
F: 240
The designers obviously had the three crit dot weapons in mind when they picked this: the extra threat range is like a x2 for scythe, while the extra critical damage is like a 4/3 multiplier. Whereas for the falchion, the extra threat range is only a 4/3, but the extra multiplier is x2.
Note that the final version is a bit of a wash, because while you'll see a lot of overkill with your 5x multipliers on 17-20, the 13-20 falchion at x3 will sometimes fail to HIT on a 13, especially with the lower attacks in your iteration.
And of course, the real way to rock this was with the bladed gauntlet in the same book, which was misprinted to be 16-20 :P
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
I'm going to agree with the OP here- it's a definite increase in power. I've seen this sort of thing in play, and it can get nasty. Of course, it just makes me happy for the sword & board style fighter I've been wanting to play. :) For that sort of build, I don't think my GM will mind, either- it's not like I plan on being cheesy and going for the two-weapon archtype or something.
As for the comment on it bothering history buffs- not really. (For me, at least.) The falcata is probably one of the most powerful slashing weapons ever designed. Problems with 'historical accuracy' are from system artifacts- i.e., weapon length has little effect and damage type vs. armor doesn't matter.
Tanis wrote: Kaisoku wrote: The problem the OP is talking about is that it's not just another "step" in crit, because it is increasing both ends of the spectrum: the chance and the multiplier. No it's not.
If it did it would be 18-20 *3
The standard for a martial weapon (going by greatsword/axe) is 19-20 *2 or 20 * 3.
This is either increasing the threat range by one or increasing the multiplier depending on which way you look at it.
Not both. Please keep up. I'm talking about increasing both sides. We aren't comparing to the longsword here... you are.
I'm saying it increases the crit range (from 20 to 19-20) and it increases the multiplier (from x2 to x3). Hence: it has an increased crit range and crit multiplier.
That multiplier increase over a longsword has a larger effect (seen in the math I provided). It's no longer just adding 5% damage, because you aren't applying the increase towards the base (all the range increases applying against x2, or all the multipliers applying against a flat 20), you are applying a multiplier vs a multiplier... these add up differently.
Adding a x3 to a longsword has double the effect for this reason. It works more like a 20/x5 or 17-20/x2 weapon would.
If you had the choice of 17-20/x2, 19-20/x3 or 20/x5, I'm betting people would no longer see the falcata as a "no brainer" choice.
Maths is obviously your strong point, mine not so much. But i appreciate you going through the steps.
In actual play tho, it's much better to do consistently better damage than doing a knockout blow less frequently.
That's just a fact. I totally see where you're coming from, but just because statistically they're the same in the long run doesn't mean that it translates to the game.
@Kaisoku: Mind your tone please.
Why are you comparing it with a simple weapon?
Simple>Martial>Exotic
Therefore, a true comparison is with a Martial weapon, not an exotic.
Longsword>Bastard Sword. Not Club>Bastard Sword. no?
Kaisoku wrote: The falcata has had these stats since 3e I believe (if not, then 3.5e I'm positive). It's a heavy blade that has the power of an axe chop in it's attack. Well, not in reality or anything. It's an older weapon, inferior to the much more advanced things.
However, I'm definitely not familiar with a 3.0 version (and I suspect I would be). I'm not familiar with a 3.5 version either, but I could have missed it. Do you recall what book featured it?
Quote: Since we treat weapon use abstractly, we treat it as a longsword with an axe's multiplier. Well, that's a lot better mechanically then Exotic Weapon Proficiency otherwise buys you.
Quote: If you take the based crit of 20/x2, you have 5% chance of 200% damage. Mathematically, you can look at that as double damage on that portion of your chances to hit.
Effectively, dealing double damage on a 20 offsets the automatic miss (no damage) on a 1.
Total damage (assuming anything hits other than a 1) is 100%.
It's less because you can miss your confirm on a 1, but that's about right. It's not relevant to the discussion either.
Quote: With 19-20/x2, you are looking at 10% of x2 damage, so 105% damage. 0.1 x 2 = 20%, 1 is a miss so you add 1x damage to the remaining 85%, so 85+20=105
And 20/x3 mathematically gives the same result: 105% damage.
Ok, that's the right number given you started with 95% and added 2 crit dots at 5% per, for 105%, I'm following.
Quote: With 18-20/x2, or 20/x4, you get another step higher: 110% damage. Also consistent. You start with 95% and add in the 3 crit dots, getting to 110%.
Quote: However, when we get to the falcata, 19-20/x3, we see 115% damage. So, what should have been only "one" step (19-20/x2 going to 19-20/x3), we see "two" steps in damage increase. Correct, you get 4 crit dots with this guy, so 95% + 20% = 115%, which is the equivalent of applying Improved Critical to a Waraxe- and certainly superior to the other exotic weapons.
Quote: With Improved Critical, this only gets magnified:
17-20/x2 or 19-20/x3: 115%
15-20/x2 or 19-20/x4: 125%
17-20/x3: 135%
Your 115% is 4x5% more than 95 (4 dots).
Your 125% is 6x5% more than 95 (6 dots, the normal max).
And of course your 135% is 8x5% more than 95 (8 dots, the Falcata max).
Quote: Then again, they've stated before that exotic weapons aren't statistically balanced on purpose, so I doubt we'll be getting a developer response on this other than "yeah, it's good,... That would basically be what I asked earlier- is it just that this one is supposed to be good, or is it a math mistake? Note that they didn't apply this to the most min-maxxy thing possible. For instance, they didn't start with a greatsword or a falchion and use that as the baseline, etc.
Tanis wrote: @Kaisoku: Mind your tone please. I was getting the impression you were deliberately misinterpreting what I was saying to be a jerk, and was getting a bit annoyed. I blame internets for this, but I'll tone back the attitude, mea culpa.
Tanis wrote: Why are you comparing it with a simple weapon?
Simple>Martial>Exotic
Therefore, a true comparison is with a Martial weapon, not an exotic.
Longsword>Bastard Sword. Not Club>Bastard Sword. no?
My comment is simply to specify why the math is different when applied towards the falcata, compared to any other crit range.
Simply put, I wasn't comparing it to any weapons, rather I was trying to show why the math provides a different result over any other crit range.
As for the results of my direct comparison:
The Falcata is a one-handed 1d8 damage weapon. A martial version can have a crit range of 19-20/x2 or 20/x3. This results in 105% damage, or "one step" up from base damage of 100% (simple weapon).
An exotic weapon should then have one further step up. With an 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 weapon, this stays true (110%).
The problem arises with the Falcata having both a larger than base crit range, and a larger than base crit multiplier. Prior to this, all weapons only have a larger than base crit range or multiplier, never both.
Because it has a larger than base in both range and multiplier, the bonuses multiply each other.
A simple math example (not a directly correlating one, mind you), is how 2+2=4 and 2x2=4, but when you get to 2+3=5, 2x3=6... not the same. This change is similar (not exactly remember, similar) to what's happening with the falcata.
Please, no one jump on me for the math example here. It's just to show how changing one simple thing can make the previous assumptions fly out the window. That's it!
Tanis wrote: In actual play tho, it's much better to do consistently better damage than doing a knockout blow less frequently. Yes, an opinion I agree with like 10 times throughout my post.
Quote: That's just a fact. Actually, that's not a fact- it's a result of typical play. If most of your targets were 2000 hit point extradimensional beasts trying to rip their way through the fabric of reality while blasting you with beams of suck, then you'd be fine dealing some x5 criticals to it, and it would work out.
Also note that another advantage of an x4 critical is that an enemy just can't risk it. Are you gonna stand next to the Scythe wielding orc, or the Falchion wielding one?
There are upsides to the big multipliers versus the consistent ones. They just are mostly upsides for NPCs, not PCs.
Quote: I totally see where you're coming from, but just because statistically they're the same in the long run doesn't mean that it translates to the game. In general I agree, you want the bigger threat range. My weapon master used the x4 weapon as his baseline, however, and let me assure you, it was totally wicked. My reasoning was that I would just flat out run out of Increased multipliers. Of course, the falchion would have been WAY BETTER through most of the levels, because you don't even get that Ki critical until like Weapon Master 7.
The falcata clearly breaks the rules of weapon "balance" that have so far been upheld across the three weapon categories. When I first saw it in Pathfinder, I felt cheated -- as if my favorite e-mail provider had started to spam me. Pathfinder is supposed to be smarter than that.
I don't know whether the increase in damage is powerful enough to break the game -- I guess not, since exotic weapons were almost never worth it before --, but it certainly renders all other one-handed exotic weapons obsolete. That's just bad game design.
(Though, frankly, the greadsword takes up a similar spot in the two-handed weapon regime. We're just tolerating the imbalance because it's traditional in D&D.)
Cool. I think we've found what common ground we have on this issue.
I was just trying to get across that in my experience it's always preferable to have a higher crit range rather than a multiplier. To me, if it had stats of 18-20 *3 that would be OP. As it stands i'd probably stick with my falchion or kukri.
@Kaisoku - we're cool man.
*edit* What Carthasis? How is the greatsword unbalanced??
Tanis wrote: *edit* What Carthasis? How is the greatsword unbalanced?? Yea, how IS the greatsword imbalanced?
The greatsword is about what you would expect out of a 2 handed martial weapon. It's got 2 crit dots and 7 average damage. It's just a longsword upgraded to be two handed (mechanically). Are you saying it should really be a d12 instead of 2d6?
What WOULD crush balance is if we saw any of these exotic weapons two handed weapons:
3d6, 20x2 (this is technically within budget)
1d6, (16-20)x2 (this is too- if you downgrade your die thrice, you can technically add three crit dots)
1d6, 20x6 (the same as the above in the ludicrous direction)
Within reason, this would also make people chase after it:
2d6, (18-20)x2
2d8, (19-20)x2
Using the new Falcata budget, I don't know how it could work out either.
Tanis wrote: *edit* What Carthasis? How is the greatsword unbalanced?? Inasmuch as it sticks out head and shoulders above the base damage output of other martial weapons, except for the greataxe, which has similar (but less) damage and a less reliable crit mechanic. I realize this gets less and less important as the barbarian accrues a flat +20 bonus on this power attacks, at which point the falchion becomes better.
So far, in my experience, all two-handed martial characters I've ever seen have been using greatswords, except for my chain fighter back in 3.5 when it was still good. Then again, we generally only play up to level 10 or so, and now in Pathfinder it has become easier to add reliable static bonuses to damage, what with Weapon Training, Smiting, and the improved Power Attack conversion rate, so things might have changed while I wasn't looking.
Clarification: My argument boils down to "the step from 1d8 to 2d6 is too big". The greatsword does follow the rules otherwise, but this is a glitch in the rules IMHO.
Just to jump in with the history thing. DnD has never gone down the history route after all not all the weapons we use were made of steel so that does change things alot. You just gave to roll with it after the reasons they give for the falcata being as it is are just the same as for the historical falcion, Sword with power of an ax. Just like the bladed guantlet ok it was 16-20 but then it was 3 short swords strapped to your hand so what was the point in it doing short sword damage. These things are just done for flavour I feel to give you options other than just a sword or an axe.
I long ago gave up on the historic weapons (yes I know what I'm talking about) and just went with the flow, if I find it buggers up my games I change it and see.
@Carthasis: When you say 1d8 to 2d6, are you talking about longsword? I'm confused.
In regards to the rest of the post that was my point about it generally being better to have a higher threat range than multiplier.
Catharsis wrote: Clarification: My argument boils down to "the step from 1d8 to 2d6 is too big". The greatsword does follow the rules otherwise, but this is a glitch in the rules IMHO. Ok. That I pretty much disagree with. Remember that a guy using a 1d8 weapon has either:
1- An additional 1d6 he's swinging with.
2- A shield.
I don't think that going from 4.5 to 7 is bad, given that you are choosing to use your second hand. The greataxe being 1d12 x3 is less appealing to most players, but that .5 average damage shouldn't really be making the decision for you. A greataxe will deal 12 more often, after all, which means that someone who is actually making tactical decsions based on your possible output is in much bigger danger (especially if you multiply dice instead of rolling twice). There's a reason they switched the orcs from Greataxes to Falchions from 3.0 to 3.5, and it was that standing next to the x3 crit guy was able to end you some percentage of the time.
I agree the greatsword is better. But hell, it's a greatsword. That's a fine weapon! It's not like, a backwards curved katana that's at the top, or some custom elven thing you've never heard of, or an orc bola, or even an obsolete weapon like the Falcata. There are still players that run with the greataxe, at the end of the day.
I agree tanis but only to a point after all you still need to be able to hit and confirm with your massive threat range other wise its a waste but smaller damge more often is my way of thinking. But that being said some times it is nice to roll out the BIG damage once in a while but thats the good thing with the game you ahve a choice do I want threat or crit with this character.
I guess I should have said 2d4 vs 2d6 rather than 1d8 vs 2d6. I don't know why they insist on using different dice for two-handed weapons. At any rate, 2d4 is almost the same as 1d8, whereas 2d6 is a big step ahead.
well a big thing with the greatsword to great ax is that the greatax only has a d12 instead of say 2d6 was that they thought the d12 needed some love as it wasnt used anymore.
Immortalis wrote: Just to jump in with the history thing. DnD has never gone down the history route after all Yes. Yes it has. Hell they even changed the damage that crossbow bolts did after new research happened at that big battle site in Europe. They really tried pretty hard, given that we are just talking about picking which die size to roll. Then we have the 8 pound unwieldable barbell Khopesh and the uberFalcata in some recent splatbook, because every splatbook has like one dude who just shrugs and ignores like 10 people doing research for years. This isn't the first, or the worst, but it's definitely an outlier, and I think it's a first for Pathfinder.
But I'm not really wanting to go down that route. People who don't care have been in charge for some time now pretty much everywhere, it's not a winnable battle. I house rule this stuff easily enough- my question was more about the weight of the exotic weapon proficiency feat and if it's being changed or reevaluated.
Quote: Just like the bladed guantlet ok it was 16-20 That was actually a misprint. Later versions corrected it even!
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
cfalcon wrote: I agree the greatsword is better. But hell, it's a greatsword. That's a fine weapon! It's not like, a backwards curved katana that's at the top, or some custom elven thing you've never heard of, or an orc bola, or even an obsolete weapon like the Falcata. There are still players that run with the greataxe, at the end of the day. I can understand that you're not in favor of an unbalanced mechanic, but what's your beef with the actual historical falcata? It's a great weapon for its purpose. It's likely that it went out of favor for cultural reasons rather than technological ones anyways.
Greataxe using a d12, to me, is because it's the iconic barbarian weapon...the only other place (that I can think of offhand) where a d12 is used. >_> <_<
And thanks for the math breakdown. I see what you're saying, but personally I still prefer the greater range over the greater multiplier, both because of the crit feats and because I always seem to get crits when things have like...2hp left. At least there's finally an exotic weapon worth spending a feat on, though!
Catharsis wrote: I guess I should have said 2d4 vs 2d6 rather than 1d8 vs 2d6. I don't know why they insist on using different dice for two-handed weapons. At any rate, 2d4 is almost the same as 1d8, whereas 2d6 is a big step ahead. Well, I think the deal is that each crit dot costs more when you are able to crit with more base dice and 1.5x Strength. However, you do have a point- 1d6+1d4 could be argued for, as could 2d4+1. I still see enough people chasing the Falchion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion , not normally a two handed weapon :P ) that I don't think it's misplaced power-wise- at least not much.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
So, to say something more on topic- I once had a ftr/rog in 3.0 with a feat to let him do x3 crits with his short swords. It was very noticeably more powerful, and that was without the 1d8 of the falcata. I remember occasionally doing 60+ damage with a single shortsword attack. It was sick.
That being said, I think the playstyle of your group will determine whether the falcata is really a game-breaker or not. It's only a problem if people really abuse it.
Interesting point- you mentioned the possibility of a 2d6(18-20/x2) weapon. It's been done in the Jovar. (Planar Handbook, IIRC) I haven't seen those take over our games, either.
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote: I can understand that you're not in favor of an unbalanced mechanic, but what's your beef with the actual historical falcata? It's a great weapon for its purpose. It's likely that it went out of favor for cultural reasons rather than technological ones anyways. 1- The Falcata was used by regular militia and regular people, not crazy specially trained types. The other exotic weapons in the PHB are either fantastic (double bladed Sithsaber or whatever), are not meant as weapons but can be used as such by people trained in their use (the monk weapons), or are only exotic when wielded a certain way (dwarven waraxe, bastard sword). An exotic weapon used by someone non-proficient is wildly inaccurate. Taking a historical martial weapon and calling it exotic is actually implying negative things about the people using them. In the case of say, nunchakus or farm implements, it's usually implying that they were stuck using improved weapons, usually by an oppressive government. But in this case, it's implying that the Spanish inhabitants were, well, dumb, for using such an unwieldy weapon. Consistently speaking, this should be a martial weapon. It was used for martial purposes, in a similar fashion to other weapons wielded by their contemporaries.
2- When you ARE proficient, it really reaps the benefits. Is this weapon really BETTER than, say, a longsword? Or a bastard sword? Weapons made with much better technology hundreds of years later? This implies that everyone in the middle ages didn't know how to make a sword- and here we are supposing the occasional access to whatever Exotic Weapon Proficiency is supposed to model. Why didn't the Falcata show up here?
I'm left thinking that they just jammed the weapon in to fit a niche (or if this originated in 3.5, then someone else did).
Anyway, this tangent could be a whole other thread, and would probably be better suited for another forum.
Well most cutting/slashing weapons started to be obsolete when armour got better. As you see with the bastard sword it wasnt actually sharp as was used more with one hand on the blade with only the top few inches sharp as a cutting edge wont do you any good against plate armour. Will check my refrence books on the falcata.
Being ninja'd but Op I will refrain from this line of posts. The OP has done a great job with the math of this, what i would say is it could be like many other things that have been pointed out and doesnt actually affect your game but I for one will keep an eye out for it in mine. thanks cfalcon for doing the hard stuff :)
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote: So, to say something more on topic- I once had a ftr/rog in 3.0 with a feat to let him do x3 crits with his short swords. It was very noticeably more powerful, and that was without the 1d8 of the falcata. I remember occasionally doing 60+ damage with a single shortsword attack. It was sick. That's actually reachable with improved critical on, say, a handaxe (base multiplier of x3 on a 20, then you can make it into x3 on 19 and 20- unless you meant he had improved critical AND the +1 multiplier feat). That +1 multiplier feat really gets good when you put it on like, a scimitar or kukri (I had it as a custom feat in my 3.0 games, and phased it out after it was just kind of too good- it wasn't even player abuse, we just eventually did the math carefully).
Quote: That being said, I think the playstyle of your group will determine whether the falcata is really a game-breaker or not. It's only a problem if people really abuse it. I don't really think it's that out line for a feat or anything. It's just not consistent with the other exotic weapons.
Quote: Interesting point- you mentioned the possibility of a 2d6(18-20/x2) weapon. It's been done in the Jovar. (Planar Handbook, IIRC) I haven't seen those take over our games, either. Well, I suspect you'd see a lot of fighter / barbarian types chase that down if you put it in a Pathfinder supplement- anyone going for massive damage and with a spare feat might consider something like that.
Of the top of my head, the only build that would really benifit from the falcata is the sword and board, and all it really does is raise their damage potential a little, and that isn't exactly a game breaker
But what two weapon fighter is going to let go of their scimitars threat range? I mean, when you can deal damage, exhaust, stun and trip a target on the majority of your hits, it seems mad to reduce your threat range
After re-reading the OPs post and re-aligning my brain. I think this could be a one off as they could have change others and didnt or it could be a mis-print. I found though that most of my players wouldnt want to pay the feat, I have had a fighter state that he gets all the other weaons for free so why spend a feat.
Immortalis wrote: After re-reading the OPs post and re-aligning my brain. I think this could be a one off as they could have change others and didnt or it could be a mis-print. I found though that most of my players wouldnt want to pay the feat, I have had a fighter state that he gets all the other weaons for free so why spend a feat. It appears to be intentional, as the falcata has appeared as described, in several Paizo books now
have to say I hadnt noticed (my bad) I would think then its a move to try and fetch things inline with discriptions but why they would do this and not change others is beyond me. We will just have to wait and see.
Thnaks for clearing that up zombieneighbours :)
cfalcon wrote: 1- The Falcata was used by regular militia and regular people, not crazy specially trained types. The other exotic weapons in the PHB are either fantastic (double bladed Sithsaber or whatever), are not meant as weapons but can be used as such by people trained in their use (the monk weapons), or are only exotic when wielded a certain way (dwarven waraxe, bastard sword)....In the case of say, nunchakus or farm implements, it's usually implying that they were stuck using improved weapons, usually by an oppressive government. But in this case, it's implying that the Spanish inhabitants were, well, dumb, for using such an unwieldy weapon. Consistently speaking, this should be a martial weapon. It was used for martial purposes, in a similar fashion to other weapons wielded by their contemporaries. +1
The falcata, falx, or whatever the users called it, is not remotely exotic.
It's not exotic for coming from far, far away, since it was used in Eastern Europe (and BTW, 'coming from far away' has always been a rotten reason for making a weapon cost a feat).
It's not exotic for being difficult to use; you lift it up, you bring it down.
It's not exotic in that it was restricted to a secretive, reclusive caste of mystical ascetics; it was used by big hairy men, who were probably drunk.
If you want to reflect its historical infamy, keep it as a martial weapon, scale back the crit range, and give it a bonus to sundering, or the ability to ignore up to +1/+2 worth of shield bonus.
First off I should say that I agree the Falcata is a good weapon. Getting to improve the threat range and the multiplier at once is certainly a good thing.
Now, having gotten that out of the way I wanted to mention how the maths in this thread touches on a pet hate I have that I see a lot in discussions on these boards. Very often in comparing weapons people just look at average damage, but statistically speaking a straight average only tells part of the story (and often a rather misleading part) if it isn't included alongside a measure of spread.
I'll illustrate my point with a rather extreme example. Let's say that you have a choice between Sword A (with threat range 11-20 and x2 damage) and Sword B (with threats on a 20 and x12 damage). Assuming a character always hits then Sword B will do slightly more damage on average. Sword A however threatens a crit 50% of the time while Sword B only does 5% of the time. Against equal challenge rating opponents you'll probably want the consistency of Sword A. Though against an especially tough opponent you may prefer to have Sword B and desperately hope to get lucky before you die.
I would suggest that for most people, in most situations, Sword A is simply better than Sword B. It has less average damage, but the damage of Sword A is much more consistent and that has value. Not to mention the added possibility of triggering any abilities the character or weapon has that go off with a crit.
While less extreme this still holds true for the comparison between a 19-20/x3 weapon and an 18-20/x2 weapon. The first weapon is going to do more damage on a long term average, yes. But the second weapon is going to get you a critical 50% more often. How often does a lucky critical save you in combat? You're more likely to get that luck with your 18-20 weapon.
Obviously the situation with the real weapons isn't as clear cut here as in my fictitious example. But it's important to remember that greater predictability in terms of damage is a factor as well. Raw damage is all well and good, but the way that damage is distributed matters.
|
