just wondering what is more important to most players critical threat range or critical damage multiplier.
although characters can be focused on either one so its ultimately a personality and character choice I am asking which generally excites you more.
if you had a choice between a weapon with a critical stat of 20 x4 or a weapon that is exactly the same in all other ways except that its critical stat is 18-20 x2. which would you chose?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
18-20 if you care about DPR. If you just want really powerful crits, but you don't care if they land less often then I would go for the x4.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
just wondering what is more important to most players critical threat range or critical damage multiplier.
although characters can be focused on either one so its ultimately a personality and character choice I am asking which generally excites you more.
if you had a choice between a weapon with a critical stat of 20 x4 or a weapon that is exactly the same in all other ways except that its critical stat is 18-20 x2. which would you chose?
Definitely threat range. I would take the 18-20/x2 (and put Keen on it) in a heartbeat over even a 20 x5 (if that existed)
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!
Multiplier all the way for my variable mileage. I *always* remember that a nat-20 threatens to critical. I don't always remember everything else. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Threat range is more effective.
Multiplier is more fun.
A keen 18-20 range (making it a 15-20 range) seems to be mostly a crit. Then it feels like just the normal damage. With maybe a little sad on the few occasions that it is not a crit.
However, when you suddenly get the x4 crit it is kool.
Statistically:
19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3
A 10% chance to increase the damage by 100% vs a 5% chance to increase the damage by 200% is statistically equal (19-20/x2 vs 20/x3).
However, with that stated I would prefer 19-20/x2 in order to spread the criticals around more and not 'overkill'.
Statistically 18-20/x2 vs 20/x4 are also equal to each other but they are not equal to the previous pair because even though the average weapon damages decrease they dont decrease enough (bonus damage is superior to weapon damage in effectiveness).
Ultimately, I will typically choose an 18-20/x2 over a 19-20/x2, 20/x3, or 20/x4 weapon if most of the damage is coming from bonus damage.
Of course, the 19-20/x3 weapon is ultimately king but that takes an Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even in short term, two crits from your 18-20 x2 weapon will do the same damage as one from the 20 x4 weapon.
No, because the attack with the scythe that wasn´t a critical still landed, so:
Fachion:
-18: damage x2
-19: damage x2
-20: damage x2
Total: damage x6
Fachion:
-18: damage x1
-19: damage x1
-20: damage x4
Total: damage x6
In terms of DPR they are equivalent (with slight advantage against enemeis with really high ACs for high multiplier weapons), the diference comes when other factors like critical feats, called shots, automatic criticals and other hard to translate in DPR come into play.
The main reason I would pick high threat over high multiplier is that melee types often do enough damage to kil an opponent in 1 or 2 rounds and odds of having the extra damage wasted on pure overkill on near dead opponents is greater with a scythe that on a falchion. Another factor that is hard to translate in DPR.
Humbly,
Yawar
Statistically:
19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3A 10% chance to increase the damage by 100% vs a 5% chance to increase the damage by 200% is statistically equal (19-20/x2 vs 20/x3).
...
Statistically 18-20/x2 vs 20/x4 are also equal to each other but they are not equal to the previous pair because even though the average weapon damages decrease they dont decrease enough (bonus damage is superior to weapon damage in effectiveness)...
Many will disagree with you on that.
Assume your target has a moderate AC and your fighter has to roll a 15 or so to hit.
Every hit with a keen 18-20/x2 is a critical threat.
Only 1/3 of the hits with a keen 20/x4 are critical threats.
Also there are lots of weapons, feat, and ability effects that trigger off of criticals. So mechanically you want crits to happen as often as possible.
But as I said before, the occasional really high damage is just more fun to me.
Called Shots are not part of the regular rules. Automatic Criticals are extremely high level and build specific.
Generally, 18-20/x2 and 20/x4 ARE equal in DPR but unequal for certain builds. Which btw, is normal.
- 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.
Many people using the high crit chance weapons either get keen or improved critical.
Is it still even after the weapons go to 15-20/x2 vs 19-20/x4?
Wraithstrike:
30% chance for a +100% chance of damage vs a 10% chance for a +300% chance of damage.
Short answer: yes, they are equal (assuming a 15 is sufficient to hit).
- Gauss
P.S. As soon as you play with the multiplier (not the threat range) then it jumps into favor of the weapon that has a greater threat range. (18-20/x3 is better than 20/x5).
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.
LOL. Statistics lie all the time.
But I understand what you are saying. That is why I said many will disagree with you on that. They want to count on a crit threat on every hit. They do not feel they can count on one that occurs every so often.
Also, many people will pay for keen on a 18-20/x2 but will not on a 20/x4. I'm really not sure exactly why that is, but you see it in alot of the threads.
Gignere: the only auto crit I know of is the THF archetype's level 19 ability. However, that is at level 19. I have never seen a level 19campaign and frankly, neither have most people on the boards. It is often mentioned how campaigns terminate around level 15.
While I like theorycrafting at that level, I never plan on playing or GMing it. Levels 10-13 are vastly more representative of power levels of various classes. Perhaps that is why PFS stops gameplay at level 12.
- Gauss
if you had a choice between a weapon with a critical stat of 20 x4 or a weapon that is exactly the same in all other ways except that its critical stat is 18-20 x2. which would you chose?
18-20 threat range every time.
Butterfly Sting is nice, but it presumes you are sacrificing your critical for someone elses'. Not bad though, I can see a nasty tag team doing this. Im surprised it isn't a teamwork feat that requires both people to have it.
- Gauss
In favor of range: Overkill, Crit riders.
In favor of multiplier: specialized auto-crit combo builds.
Advantage: Range, in all but a few rare cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
18-20 x2 is double damage 30% of the time (keened). 19-20 x3 is triple damage 20% of the time (keened). They work out to be the same on paper. However, I would choose the greater range to even out the damage. You only deal damage when you hit, and it's better to hit more often than simply to multiply your damage by more. Except in the case of DR, but if you're serious about dealing damage, you should have a tactic to get around it.
It should be noted that most of the time, only some of the damage is actually multiplied. Precision damage and such (without extra help) is not multiplied. This just increases the reason to take a better hit rate over a higher multiplier, as you're not doing triple all of the damage, only some of it. Therefore, you are not truly dealing 50% more damage with a x3 multiplier over the x2. You're tripling the multipliable damage, and simply adding the same non-multipliable damage to both, skewing the math.
The only thing that would move me from an 18-20 x2, is an 18-20 x3 or better, or a 19-20 x4 or better. As far as I know, such weapons don't exist in PF.
Conclusion, go for consistency.
18-20 x2 is double damage 30% of the time (keened). 19-20 x3 is triple damage 20% of the time (keened). They work out to be the same on paper. However, I would choose the greater range to even out the damage. You only deal damage when you hit, and it's better to hit more often than simply to multiply your damage by more. Except in the case of DR, but if you're serious about dealing damage, you should have a tactic to get around it.
It should be noted that most of the time, only some of the damage is actually multiplied. Precision damage and such (without extra help) is not multiplied. This just increases the reason to take a better hit rate over a higher multiplier, as you're not doing triple all of the damage, only some of it. Therefore, you are not truly dealing 50% more damage with a x3 multiplier over the x2. You're tripling the multipliable damage, and simply adding the same non-multipliable damage to both, skewing the math.
The only thing that would move me from an 18-20 x2, is an 18-20 x3 or better, or a 19-20 x4 or better. As far as I know, such weapons don't exist in PF.
Conclusion, go for consistency.
19-20/X3 should pull ahead, especially once it becomes 17-20.
Qori, your statement is incorrect.
18-20/x2 is not 30%. With keen it is 15-20/x2 which is 30%.
19-20/x3 is not 20%. With Keen it is 17-20/x3 which is 20%.
Let us assume 15-20/x2 vs 17-20/x3.
15: +100% vs +0%
16: +100% vs +0%
17: +100% vs +200%
18: +100% vs +200%
19: +100% vs +200%
20: +100% vs +200%
Thus we get (across 30% of the dice rolls): +600% vs +800% That is not the same. The damage is in favor of 17-20/x3 (a 19-20/x3 weapon with keen).
Your statement regarding 'only some of the damage is actually multiplied' is technically correct but realistically incorrect. Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers do not have precision damage. They do on occassion have other damage (such as holy) that is not multiplied but that is not the basis of this. That is factored out equally.
Assuming any energy or other non-multiplied damage is factored out we can compare things (reminder: except for Vital Strike most things factor out equally):
Note: I am using 'small' weapons where appropriate so that we can remove damage dice differences from the mathematics. Clearly a larger damage die will mitigate some of this and if you want to run those numbers I suggest you do so. I am simply showing the mathematics of threat range and multipliers.
Assuming level 4, 22strength (reasonable with bull's strength), +1magic, +2weapon specialization, +4power attack you get a bonus of +13damage
Scimitar: d6+13(16.5) vs shortsword: d6+13(16.5) vs Small Warhammer: d6+13(16.5) vs Heavy Pick: d6+13(16.5) vs Small Falcata: d6+13(16.5)
18: 33.0 vs 16.5 vs 16.5 vs 16.5 vs 16.5
19: 33.0 vs 33.0 vs 16.5 vs 16.5 vs 49.5
20: 33.0 vs 33.0 vs 49.5 vs 66.0 vs 49.5
= 99 vs 82.5 vs 82.5 vs 99 vs 115.5
As we can see: The Scimitar and Heavy Pick are equal. Shortsword and Small Warhammer are equal, and Falcata is superior to all (but costs' an exotic proficiency).
If you add in keen it shifts farther into falcata's favor (scimitar is second place).
- Gauss
Range, for me, every time. If I'm a fighter I'll pick up Improved Critical, if not I'll spring for Keen. Crit on 15+? Oh, yeah.
Range, as Rasmus Wagner said. Whilst it's fun to occasionally slice that ogre down to -70 in a single hit with a scythe, putting it on -1 three times as often is rather more useful.
The other benefit of range only comes in at higher levels with the Something Critical feats (sickening, etc) which happen on any crit regardless of damage.
On which note, where's the bastard scimitar? 1d8, 18-20x2.
Which ever one gives highest statistical damage. They're in a sense, dependent on each other and should be treated as such.
If I'm going for abilities that trigger on crits or threats, better to increase their frequency - so I go for a wider crit threat range. If I'm not, the 20/x3 is statistically the same as the 19-20/x2 over the long run, so I don't usually care so much.
That said, there's a satisfaction to having an increased number of crits even if the damage doesn't spike as high. So I still tend toward the wider range unless I feel particularly axe-ish with the character.
18-20 x2 is double damage 30% of the time (keened). 19-20 x3 is triple damage 20% of the time (keened).
I did mention they were keened, just didn't pull all the math out (don't feel like typing). However, I must still disagree, there's several things that still don't multiply even for fighters on crits, but I would still choose consistency even if they truly were equal in damage output.
After keening, 18-20 has a +10% chance of critting vs. 19-20. That's a 50% increase in crit rate. The 19-20 is x3, that's 50% more damage output. Both are identical in damage output (assuming only that all damage is multipliable).
@Gauss:
Your example only shows the 'difference of the increase', not the difference in total damage output. I don't know if it was intentional, but it is misrepresenting the real damage output. You need to compare total damage output, otherwise it is skewing the results:
x2 vs. x3 (15-20 vs. 17-20)
200% vs. 0%
200% vs. 0%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
-------------------
1200%vs.1200%
So you see, mathematically the output is identical, but only if all damage is multiplied. Again, DR is a factor, but there are several ways to bypass it and it is best to choose consistency over a higher multiplier otherwise. If my math is somehow wrong, please correct me.
I also agree with others for crit-feats that activate. However, I'm not very familiar with them, so I cannot claim them as an argument for being 'better' than having a higher output, but I am inclined to agree it is a factor worth noting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the range.
all too often that third X just makes the severed head fly further
|
With all respect to the idea that statistically equal weapons deliver the same DPR, it isn't completely true. It is not atypical for a hit that drops a foe is overkill damage. For example, if a foe has 10hp left, it doesn't matter if you have a hit for 11 points, crit with a x2 weapon for 22, or crit with x3 for 33, or a x4 for 44; he drops in any circumstance. A DPR calculation would use 11, 22, 33 or 44 damage in the calc, but anything beyond what drops him is overkill. As such, anything that hits more frequently is better for effective DPR.
Same idea with Power Attack...if you think he's close to dropping, better to lay off the PA and have a better chance of landing a lower damage hit than a bigger hit. This particularly came into play in 3.5 when you could choose your PA level.
Of course, one-shotting a baddie is rather satisfying, and some players get a thrill out of announcing a huge number. :) And, there are the occasions when a big hit is effective in taking the baddie out where a lesser crit would leave him up. But, they don't come up as often, and the final hit situation comes up with every opponent that you survive.
Call this another reason to prefer the threat range over the multiplier.
Edit: Call this expounding on BNW's pithy ninja summary.
range. 'overkill' was mentioned, and I believe is very relevant.
scimitar crit DPR is more constant, while 20/x4 crit DPR comes in bursts that may result in 'un-needed damage'.
against high AC targets, a keen scimitar is going to threaten crit on a high % of all hits.
i believe that on a purely damage basis (not counting effects that trigger on crits), falcatta is #1 albeit it needs XWP. EDIT: Ninja Critx2!!! ;-)
There are two ways to look at this.
One is the numerical way where you assume all of the damage that you are capable of delivering is actually meaningful and then you can say weapon X with crit range Y "does more damage" than weapon A with crit range B.
The other way to look at it is tactically. That way is to ask which approach will actually put more enemies down more rapidly.
The answer to that is that a wider crit range will put more enemies down more rapidly because you crit more often and waste less of the damage done when you do crit. This is especially true at lower levels or fighting mooks which can be outright killed by either crit, but more of them are outright killed by the more frequent crits.
Having said all that, I see nothing wrong with building a character for the most awesome crit damage possible for the sheer thrill of it.
I personally tend to not bother with crits at all, and focus instead on being able to HIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. As long as there are feats and weapon abilities that improve my basic ability to hit at all, I'm not going to waste any on pursuing crits.
Quori you are still doing it incorrectly. If I do it the way you do it I get:
x2 vs. x3 (15-20 vs. 17-20)
200% vs. 100%
200% vs. 100%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
-------------------
1200%vs.1400%
You forgot to add in the 'normal' damage of the x3 weapon at 15 and 16. The x3 weapon doesn't suddenly start to do zero damage at 15 and 16.
Regarding overkill. On other threads I have reccomended that 19-20/x2 is superior to 20/x3 due to overkill. I am a firm believer in avoiding overkill. Perhaps I did not state that in this thread because I was just trying to prove mathematical parity. I try to limit my statements to the point I am trying to make so as not to confuse people. It should not be construed as a total opinion that excludes all other opinions.
With that said, I would still choose 19-20/x3 over 18-20/x2 if I can afford the feat because that is just too shiny.
- Gauss
Quori you are still doing it incorrectly. If I do it the way you do it I get:
x2 vs. x3 (15-20 vs. 17-20)
200% vs. 100%
200% vs. 100%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
200% vs. 300%
-------------------
1200%vs.1400%You forgot to add in the 'normal' damage of the x3 weapon at 15 and 16. The x3 weapon doesn't suddenly start to do zero damage at 15 and 16.
- Gauss
I can accept this. Barring the possibility that the 'normal' hits from the x3 are indeed hits (as all crits are automatic hits, and don't need to reach the AC). In either case, I accept this.
Given it's a difference of less than 15%, I may still be inclined for the benefits of a larger range. I will have to think on this.
Thank you for the information.
^ I agree with Howie.
I think overkill is the most important marked difference. With a focus on power gaming and optimization, I think that range should be priority.If you want your guy to be the Big Bad-A, with some fantastic RP potential, there's nothing more satisfying than slicing your enemies in two, or bashing their skulls in with a strong critical.
One of the most valid arguments I can think of though is the idea of the possibility of downing that super tough end guy in one shot, as opposed to yours + one or two others (which is obviously downplayed by the lowered possibility of critting anyway). This potentially gives the big baddie another turn to survive and pwn your party. I accomplished this on friday for our party, and it may have saved us from TPK says our DM. She was about to use one of her nastier spells when I nat 20'd her from 40 feet out through a narrow corridor.
|
Threat range has a slight edge. While 20/x4 and 18-20/x2 will both do the same damage on average, you need to take into account wasted damage on the final blow.
Add to that the feats or other effects that are triggered by a critical, and anything that increases the frequency of critical hits looks even better.
Range, I like consistency.
|
|
I can accept this. Barring the possibility that the 'normal' hits from the x3 are indeed hits (as all crits are automatic hits, and don't need to reach the AC). In either case, I accept this.
All crit threats are not automatic hits. 20 is an automatic hit, but a 19 from a weapon that threatens 19-20 isn't an automatic hit.
"Increased Threat Range: Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat."
|
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.
(as all crits are automatic hits, and don't need to reach the AC)
I don't think this is right. Only Nat 20 is an auto-hit.
Wider Crit ranges just give you more chances to Confirm for a Crit (dmg muliplied, other effects),there's no auto-hit from Threatening a Crit PER SE.
Quori, other than Vital Strike (does not factor out with complete parity if damage dice are differently sized), energy weapons (factors out), alignment weapons (factors out),
Energy burst weapons are the only (relatively available and common) non-multiplier I can find that does not factor out more or less cleanly. For that we get:
Energy Burst:
15-20/x2 vs 19-20/x3 vs 19-20/x4 vs 17-20/x3
15: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10
16: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10
17: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +2d10
18: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +2d10
19: +1d10 vs +2d10 vs +3d10 vs +2d10
20: +1d10 vs +2d10 vs +3d10 vs +2d10
Totals: +6d10 vs +4d10 vs +6d10 vs +8d10.
Winner: 17-20/x3, second place: 15-20/x2 tied with 19-20/x4
Now, can you provide me any commonly used DAMAGE bonus that does not factor out cleanly and is not based on the Critical Focus tree?
For an example of factoring out cleanly: Sneak Attack factors out 100% cleanly. It doesn't matter to sneak attack if your critical is with a 15-20/x2 weapon or a 19-20/x4 weapon.
- Gauss
Edit: made some adjustments to what I said.
I can accept this. Barring the possibility that the 'normal' hits from the x3 are indeed hits (as all crits are automatic hits, and don't need to reach the AC). In either case, I accept this.All crit threats are not automatic hits. 20 is an automatic hit, but a 19 from a weapon that threatens 19-20 isn't an automatic hit.
"Increased Threat Range: Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat."
I knew I should've googled as I wrote that. Thanks for the catch.
I'm still leaning towards range over crit value.
Quori, other than Vital Strike (does not factor out with complete parity if damage dice are differently sized), energy weapons (factors out), alignment weapons (factors out),
Energy burst weapons are the only (relatively available and common) non-multiplier I can find that does not factor out more or less cleanly. For that we get:
Energy Burst:
15-20/x2 vs 19-20/x3 vs 19-20/x4 vs 17-20/x3
15: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10
16: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10
17: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +2d10
18: +1d10 vs +0d10 vs +0d10 vs +2d10
19: +1d10 vs +2d10 vs +3d10 vs +2d10
20: +1d10 vs +2d10 vs +3d10 vs +2d10
Totals: +6d10 vs +4d10 vs 6d10 vs 8d10.Winner: Falcata, second place: Scimitar/Heavy Pick.
Now, can you provide me any commonly used DAMAGE bonus that does not factor out cleanly and is not based on the Critical Focus tree?
- Gauss
I'm thinking of 3PP material and certain gained abilities through mutliclassing. Specifically things like Swashbuckler. A powerful melee class that also gains precision damage.
I play in a PbP group that uses all digital material from the PFSRD.
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 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). Try announcing that the information is based on 3PP next time so I can dismiss it early.
- Gauss
Edit: BTW, I see nothing in the Pathfinder Swashbuckler Archetype that would modify how damage (or precision damage) works.