Basically would you rather have crits more often or better crits?
Choosing weapons for a character and interested in opinions.
Peet
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer more crits. Especially when you consider that there are feats that say 'when you crit do blah'.
Usually having more crits is better in general due to critical feats and such and having less damage wasted by critical hits.
There's been a lot of discussion around this, but I believe the general consensus is that more crits are better than bigger crits, even before taking critical abilities into consideration. The reason for this is that you almost certainly won't make optimal use of every crit you get; many times with a martial character your critical will be against someone you could have killed in a single hit anyways, in which case the critical is wasted, or against someone you could kill in two hits, in which case a x3 critical is wasted. With more critical threats and a lower multiplier you spread your damage more evenly over all the stuff you attack, and waste less damage overall.
|
Before level 8, I prefer x3 and x4 weapons, only to have mild bragging rights over who did most damage (by including several potentially needless coup de graces). Also good for holding the record of hardest hit, not that I actually track either of these things. I mean, how many games will someone at the table not go "whoa" when a typical 1st level STR ranger on 15 pt buy, buffed with enlarge alone, lands a crit for 48-93 damage with a greataxe vs a favored enemy? Similarly, a very ordinary orc barbarian will 1-shot most 3rd level PCs with a confirmed critical. Essentially, its for the shock value that I favor the larger multipliers.
Without any feats, they do the same average damage per round, excess damage not considered.
If I am teamed up with someone with butterfly sting, then I prefer the Tetsubo at 1d10 20/x4
if not then one of the 1d10 18-20/x2 weapons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, though, I would avoid the 19-20 because I only have one easy to read d20 and it's as biased as any Chessex die. I believe it has a bias away from 19s, but not away from 20s. I used a longsword for several levels and all my crits were from 20s rather than half from 19s as one would expect. Until I get more dice I am better off with narrow ranges and high multipliers.
This is the saddest story I've ever heard. : )
On topic, rolling crits is fun, therefore the greater the number of crits, the more fun, regardless of the multiplier.
I prefer 18-20 x2 weapons.
With a decent damage bonus, most crits will end a fight.
Cant really compare them to 19-20/x2 weapons. And the latter is not true unless you twohit every BBEG you meet. Maybe as Castinator vs an undead/dragon BBEG...
|
Cant really compare them to 19-20/x2 weapons. And the latter is not true unless you twohit every BBEG you meet. Maybe as Castinator vs an undead/dragon BBEG...I prefer 18-20 x2 weapons.
With a decent damage bonus, most crits will end a fight.
I've one shot the last two BBEG's I scored a crit on. That may be influenced by class though.
I prefer x3/x4 crit weapons because I like the feeling of when I crit, I CRIT, wasted damage or no.
For me it depends on if your DM tends to feild lots of mooks (one or two hit enemies) or if he prefers to feild a small number of tougher creatures.
If the former then I'd say more crits is better.
If the latter then I'm all about as high a damage number as possible.
- Torger
Basically would you rather have crits more often or better crits?
Choosing weapons for a character and interested in opinions.
Peet
Mathematically speaking over time:
19-20 2x = 3x
18-20 2x = 4x
In terms of actual game play, a high strength player typically will far overkill on 4x weapons and usually overkill on 3x weapons. With these guys, more crits over time is usually better. If you're not a strength based character and make lots of attacks (say, rogue), then the 3x/4x weapons get better when talking about overkill. Any time you factor an ability that triggers on a crit, the higher threat range (18/19-20 2x) becomes a much better deal.
19-20 x2 = 20 x3
it's the presence of x4 and 18-20 x2 weapons that throw stuff off significantly.
Personally I feel like the weapon list should be designed around most weapons being 20 x2 (simple melee), 19-20 x2 (accurate), 20 x3 (overwhelming). x4 and 18-20 x2 go away. Imp Crit and Keen change from expanding range to making a 19-20 x2 or 20 x3 weapon into a 19-20 x3 weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, because melee classes are just way too strong in pathfinder!
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Right now I am looking at getting either an orc double axe or a two-bladed sword... and it sounds to me like two-bladed sword may be the way to go. It's a valid point that x3 will result in overkill more often.
Peet
Yea, because melee classes are just way too strong in pathfinder!
Who are you referencing with this comment? Snark without context is completely pointless.
Does anyone remember that feat from 3.5 that let you add sneak attack on a crit? That was fun, ridiculous, but fun
I prefer big dice over anything else. Particularly 2d6 weapons. The Big Hammer and Big Sword are my main weapons depending on build. One has X3, the other X2.
The falcion with its 2d4 does 2 less damage with normal hits on average (2.5x2 vs 3.5x2). IIRC though, once crits are taken into account (assuming that the expanded range still gets a hit) the 2d4 18/20x2, 2d6 19/20x2, 2d6 20x3, and 2d4 20x4 all do about the same damage over time. Keen/improved crits don't actually change the math all that much either.
Now the falcata actually breaks the numbers, 1d8 19/20 x2 makes up for the small dice rather handily, and with high enough static damage even makes up for the penalty to hit for 2x fighting style. Now affording the feat tax for a couple tics of DPR depends greatly on build. Only humans and half elves can really afford the feat at level 1.
I look at all the crit info though, decided I don't like feat taxes, and don't plan on using crit builds that get more out of crits. I just like a high return on every hit. This has pointed me toward using the 2d6 weapons for any 2 handed build, and 1d8 weapons on 1 handed weapons.
A note on the greataxe. I don't like 1d12, because its .5 damage less per hit, though it is more likely to have higher and lower results, while the 2d6 weapons are strongly biased towards doing about 7 damage. When all things are equal, I like large dice pools because they even out risk.
I will be the dissenting voice.
I completely understand that the higher crit range is substantially more effective.
However, it doesn’t feel special. When you have a 19-20 crit range then keen (or improved crit), it seems like most of the successful hits are critical hits. So then the critical is just your normal damage there is nothing special about it. I know it’s not, but it almost feels that way.
So I prefer the high crit multiplier. Since it happens less often it feels more special (and the effect seems more special) when you get to pull out a whole handful of dice and split something down the middle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, because melee classes are just way too strong in pathfinder!
Which means melee weapons shouldn't be balanced with eachother? Seriously, whenever a topic comes up about balancing melee feats/classes/equipment with eachother, someone always comes out of nowhere to say "Casters are overpowered!"
You're completely missing the point
Does anyone remember that feat from 3.5 that let you add sneak attack on a crit? That was fun, ridiculous, but fun
I believe the feat was called Telling blow.
As for the question at hand... I really don't care about the direct benefits of a weapon if they don't fit my concept. However if the weapons are very similar and fit my character concept equally, I tend to go with the wider crit range.
I guess it depends on if you rather have a bunch of little laughs, or one big hearty chuckle.
|
|
I prefer big dice over anything else. Particularly 2d6 weapons. The Big Hammer and Big Sword are my main weapons depending on build. One has X3, the other X2.
The falcion with its 2d4 does 2 less damage with normal hits on average (2.5x2 vs 3.5x2). IIRC though, once crits are taken into account (assuming that the expanded range still gets a hit) the 2d4 18/20x2, 2d6 19/20x2, 2d6 20x3, and 2d4 20x4 all do about the same damage over time. Keen/improved crits don't actually change the math all that much either.
Now the falcata actually breaks the numbers, 1d8 19/20 x3 makes up for the small dice rather handily, and with high enough static damage even makes up for the penalty to hit for 2x fighting style. Now affording the feat tax for a couple tics of DPR depends greatly on build. Only humans and half elves can really afford the feat at level 1.
I look at all the crit info though, decided I don't like feat taxes, and don't plan on using crit builds that get more out of crits. I just like a high return on every hit. This has pointed me toward using the 2d6 weapons for any 2 handed build, and 1d8 weapons on 1 handed weapons.
A note on the greataxe. I don't like 1d12, because its .5 damage less per hit, though it is more likely to have higher and lower results, while the 2d6 weapons are strongly biased towards doing about 7 damage. When all things are equal, I like large dice pools because they even out risk.
Fixed it for ya!
No, I really did! I know that you know that the falcata has a critical multiplier of x3, not x2, but that isn't what you wrote. : )
I will be the dissenting voice.
I completely understand that the higher crit range is substantially more effective.
However, it doesn’t feel special. When you have a 19-20 crit range then keen (or improved crit), it seems like most of the successful hits are critical hits. So then the critical is just your normal damage there is nothing special about it. I know it’s not, but it almost feels that way.
So I prefer the high crit multiplier. Since it happens less often it feels more special (and the effect seems more special) when you get to pull out a whole handful of dice and split something down the middle.
I think 19-20, even 17-20 with an improved crit range, is still pretty special. But I do think you're on to something and crits/threats can occur too often. I know Sean K Reynolds defended stacking improved crit with keen on a mathematical grounds after 3.5 was released and put the kibosh on stacking the two. But when you see a fighter threatening on 12-20 because of a keen scimitar and improved crit, that's simply rolling for crits way too often. It feels wrong no matter what the math says.
I just don't think we're at that point with 17-20.
Like I said it isn't all the time, but it is often enough that it feels that way.
Plus with all the modified templated opponents we face, only the single class martial types hit with less than 17 (and even then only on the first strike of a full attack).
Our magus, for example, with his scimitar almost never hits that is not at least a critical threat.
Yea, because melee classes are just way too strong in pathfinder!Which means melee weapons shouldn't be balanced with eachother? Seriously, whenever a topic comes up about balancing melee feats/classes/equipment with eachother, someone always comes out of nowhere to say "Casters are overpowered!"
You're completely missing the point
It takes ~+35 to damage to make a Falchion better than a Greatsword, already considering increased thread ranges.
Thats not what makes those high-crit weapons unbalanced. But what they do and what makes them "important" for pathfinder is, that they gove great options for martial classes at higher levels. Critical feats and stuff just become important at high levels and give these characters way better options to compete with gishes and casters. Thats more of a reason to give more characters high crit ranges and power these low crit range weapons with other abailities - like even more damage, other features as trip & co became kind of a waste and so on.
I go for 19-20 or 18-20 weapons, but the thrill of a X3 crit and obliterating something can be worth the wait.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im surprised that no one has brought up the falcata yet. It has 19-20 x3 for its crit. Talk about best of both worlds. Mix it with improved critical or keen and you get 17-20x3. Now that is nasty. While it alludes me off the top of my head, there are ways to increase the multiplier too.
I thought I would throw in that for massive damage, nothing tops a x4 critical. I played a 3.5 game where I had knight that focused on mounted combat, particularly spirited charge, and had an acidic burst pick. If he critted someone while charging they were pretty much done for. It might not happen often, but really it only had to happen once.
I would avoid the 19-20 because I only have one easy to read d20 and it's as biased as any Chessex die.
there´s a better dices than chessex here:
http://q-workshop.com/select.phpi swear, theyre look not so good than in real!!!
i like all options at the exactly rate for each kind of weapon
20
19-20
18-20
i never use keen or alike ability because i really enjoy the luck fun factor, when a crit comes out and need to confirm, i really enjoy the feeling!!
Uh, typo, I meant Castigator, THF-pala
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Right now I am looking at getting either an orc double axe or a two-bladed sword... and it sounds to me like two-bladed sword may be the way to go. It's a valid point that x3 will result in overkill more often.
Peet
Yeah in most strength-based TWF cases the two-bladed sword is a better deal. The exception is half-orc -- I'd take a "free" martial orc double axe over two-bladed sword any day.
I prefer axes, hammers, picks, and spears. Less due to their respective crits, more because swords of all kinds are overused and I want something different for weapons.
The x3 or x4 crits are nice gravy though.
It takes ~+35 to damage to make a Falchion better than a Greatsword, already considering increased thread ranges.
Is there math on this? It seems to me that it would take a lot less than +35 damage to make the Falshion better than the Greatsword.
Umm, crit factor of Falchion is 0.3 and the one of Greatsword is 0.2
So you deal 1.2 vs 1.3 times basedamage.
If both weapons are enlarged the difference in damage is 1d6, 3.5 damage. As far as the factor of the falchion is 0.1 higher (1.3/1.2) you need about 35 basedamage to make up for the 1d6.
Ok, when not large the difference is only 2 - idk why I considered them being large. Then they are equal at +20 basedamage.
19-20,x2 or x3? None of the above. 18-20 or x4 for me thanks.
Split the difference. Keen x3/4 weapon.
|
I tend not to worry too much about a weapon's crit multiplier when I choose a weapon, since at best crits are unpredictable and there's always the possibility of rolling 1's on the damage dice.
There's other factors to look at. The weapon's base damage dice, any special qualities it has, what type of damage it deals, and most importantly-- whether or not you think you'd have fun wielding it!
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
I know about the Falcata but basically I am looking at double weapons in particular, and until there is a double falcata I will basically be using either the two-bladed sword or the orc double axe. As a fighter it will probably be the two-bladed sword as it is in the heavy blades category which also includes chakrams, which I throw.
Umm, crit factor of Falchion is 0.3 and the one of Greatsword is 0.2
So you deal 1.2 vs 1.3 times basedamage.
If both weapons are enlarged the difference in damage is 1d6, 3.5 damage. As far as the factor of the falchion is 0.1 higher (1.3/1.2) you need about 35 basedamage to make up for the 1d6.
Ok, when not large the difference is only 2 - idk why I considered them being large. Then they are equal at +20 basedamage.
Your math is kind of wierd... I assume you mean over the course of 10 swings you need +20 damage?
|
I tend not to worry too much about a weapon's crit multiplier when I choose a weapon, since at best crits are unpredictable and there's always the possibility of rolling 1's on the damage dice.
There's other factors to look at. The weapon's base damage dice, any special qualities it has, what type of damage it deals, and most importantly-- whether or not you think you'd have fun wielding it!
The Earthbreaker is the best weapon.
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
I know about the Falcata but basically I am looking at double weapons in particular, and until there is a double falcata I will basically be using either the two-bladed sword or the orc double axe. As a fighter it will probably be the two-bladed sword as it is in the heavy blades category which also includes chakrams, which I throw.
Your math is kind of wierd... I assume you mean over the course of 10 swings you need +20 damage?Umm, crit factor of Falchion is 0.3 and the one of Greatsword is 0.2
So you deal 1.2 vs 1.3 times basedamage.
If both weapons are enlarged the difference in damage is 1d6, 3.5 damage. As far as the factor of the falchion is 0.1 higher (1.3/1.2) you need about 35 basedamage to make up for the 1d6.
Ok, when not large the difference is only 2 - idk why I considered them being large. Then they are equal at +20 basedamage.
No, I compare average damage per hit.
@Silent Saturn: you can calculate average damage per hit to seewhich weapon fits best. And therefor, yes, multiplier matters.
A greatsword on a crit and greater vital strike does 10d6+2(x) where x is the static bonus. A scythe will get to do 14d4+4(x). Just in dice the difference between 14d4 and 10d6 is 0, (2.5x14 and 3.5x10 both = 35), but the difference in static damage is 2x, but the greatsword crits twice as often, so that theoretically balances.
Without a crit and with greater vital strike the damage is 8d6+x (28 damage from dice) vs 8d4+x (20 damage from dice), a difference of 8 damage. 8 damage is a rather large swing in damage potential.
An earth breaker does the same damage as the greatsword on normal hits, but does 12d6 on crits, but they happen half as often. The difference is 7 static damage, witch is how much the extra crit chance generates, so the weapons are the same for DPR purposes (excluding the needing 20 to hit situations).
I haven't had time or energy to figure out the 2d4 18-20 weapons with vital strike chain, but they start out with 8 damage penalty in normal hits, and a 10 damage penalty in crits.
A large bastard sword is a rather interesting choices for a vital strike build, for a -2 to hit, it gains 8 damage over the great sword on normal hits, and 10 on crits. The 2d8 is a pretty nasty weapon damage packet for a vital strike chain, and probably is worth the -2 to dpr assuming a full BAB class (or buffed 3/4 one).
My impression from the little work I did is that big dice weapon are better for vital strike than smaller dice (and obviously 2 dice weapons are better than 1 dice weapons).
For a vital strike build I would go with an earthbreaker/greatsword or a large bastard sword, though a falcion might be able to break in if there is enough static bonus to leverage the extra chances to over come the sizable difference in dice damage.
For a crit build or full attack build obviously the expanded range weapons are better. In a non vital strike build the 1-2 damage difference due to dice size is easily made up the increased crit chance.
You're wrong. The scythe adds .3 times basedamage on because of range and multiplier, the greatsword .2
Therefor it does not balance out.
But as far as vital strike builds suck in very most cases anyway this isnt really relevant. Especially because it only effects games at lvl16+
That's why vital strike sucks because it only effects games at level 16 plus? Who says? My GM might disagree, considering my enemies don't just stand there and let me full attack them every round ;)