I was able to quickly illustrate that the easier it is to hit the enemy the starker the advantage is for the crit range. If you can hit on a 15, the weapon that crits on a 15 for only double damage has an enormous advantage not just over a c19x3 weapon but even over say... a c19x7 weapon, which is hard to imagine being true but it is! I can clearly show that armor class of the opponent can make a huge difference (missing on an 18 nearly takes away the c15x2's advantage).
I can change philosophies on the fly. Right now the table uses the philosophy that you simply double the damage roll on a crit. I can easily add a new column to include actually having to roll a second die and add them instead. I can accommodate various houserules like adding the strength damage before doubling or after. Its very versatile.
Over time and all other things being equal (keen or not, crit confirmation or not) the math is starkly in favor of the larger crit range over the larger multiplier so keen katana gives me the warm fuzzies. If you're an optimizer and you have a choice between say a d8(18-20(x2)) and a d8 (x4) the better choice is still the better crit range even over the whomping x4. It takes feats that help autoconfirm crits to make the x4 even in the same neighborhood as a larger crit range. Once you made both weapons keen its no contest. a 15-20 crit range far outperforms big modifiers over time.That's not true.
Here is why (example 18-20/x2 vs 20/x4):
a= chance to hit (1>=a>0, 0.05|a)
d= damage you deal on a normal hit20/x4:
You have a 1/20 chance rolling 20 on a d20 right? You still need to confirm your crit, then you do 3 times extra damage. So your extra damage from crits is 1/20*a*3*d right?18-20/x2:
Now you have 3/20 chances to threaten with a crit right? You still need to confirm, then you do one time extra damage. So the extra damage from crits is 3/20*a*1*d1/20*a*3*d=3/20*a*1*d
you can do the same thing with 19-20/x4 vs 15-20/x2
q.e.d
[edit]I think I know why your spreadsheet is flawed: If your weapon does x2 damage on crit, it only adds its damage one time (the other time it's base damage it would do anyways). If your weapon does x4 damage on crit, it adds its damage three times.
It does not matter at all how often you have to confirm a critical hit. Even if you had to confirm every single point of damage, rolling 30+ dice the average outcome would not change.It does if you consider critical focus. If you edit the values for critical focus into my calculations on greatsword vs falchion you will get a bonus damage value dependent on hit chance.
My table clearly illustrates that in practice 1/20*a*3*d=3/20*a*1*d looks good on paper but doesnt play out as true even over a gigantic sample size. I think the reason it doesnt play out is because the value of A on either side of the table changes depending on the weapon. A on the left side =1/20, but a on the right side =3/20.
so 1/20*1/20x3*d =/= 3/20*3/20*1*d. (.0075d=/=.0225d!!!)
And since I mentioned it my table also allows me to compare 2 different weapon types as well. If I have time i'll try this greatsword vs falchion business.
out of 3000 damage rolls The 15-20x2 column is greater than the 19-20x8 column.
That means either the axioms of stochastic are wrong, there is an error in your spreadsheet, you random generator is not truly random or you did not try enough throws.
I think the first one is fairly unlikely.I think the reason it doesnt play out is because the value of A on either side of the table changes depending on the weapon
How so? Why do I hit or confirm better or worse using a different weapon?
[edit]I think I know why your spreadsheet is flawed: If your weapon does x2 damage on crit, it only adds its damage one time (the other time it's base damage it would do anyways). If your weapon does x4 damage on crit, it adds its damage three times.
This is true for the sheet as presented on the forums. I was showing a crit multiplier of x3 to illustrate the OP's original comparison, but in fact even if both weapons were keen or neither weapon was keen having the prevalence of critical hits from having a lower crit range outperforms a damage multiplier of even x6.
Fantasy RPG > math...
What you say is just not right, Vincent.
You can do all the adjustments to different variables in regular calculations as well.
@SpoC: ok, yea, you're right there, but actually the difference in DPR should be rather low as its something like 0.2*0.2 compared to 0.2*0.3 additional damage on a critical hit.
@meabolex: sure, thats why I said earlier that 18-20 is probably best as there is way less damage waste and therefore a lot more DPR that actually applies.
Factoring in critical focus doesnt change the results in favor of a multiplier despite its giving the multiplier weapon much greater opportunity to apply its greater multiplier. A +4 crit confirmation gives you a +4 to those rolls, so
keen katana d8 c15 x2 becomes d8 c11 x2
vs
keen whatever d8 c19 x4 which is d8 c15 x4
using the corrected version of spock's math we see
keen katana critical adjustment of .15 (6/20 * 10/20 * 2)
keen whatever adjustment of .12 (2/20 * 6/20 * 4)
Even having a x4 modifier the keen katana would still outdamage the higher multiplier weapon even with critical focus applied
You can do all the adjustments to different variables in regular calculations as well.
If you do them correctly.
How so? Why do I hit or confirm better or worse using a different weapon?
It is easier to confirm a critical using a weapon of a threat range of 15-20 than it is to confirm a critical using a weapon with a threat range of 19-20.
The OP is asking about personal preference, and my personal preference is to know which one is mathematically superior. Unless you're missing on an 18 or you confirm criticals on a 2 the crit15 weapon always comes out on top.
It is easier to confirm a critical using a weapon of a threat range of 15-20 than it is to confirm a critical using a weapon with a threat range of 19-20.
Why would that be? Both can take critical focus! If you compare crit focus vs no crit focus sure your damage is different! Especially if the difference is 10% vs 30%!
Heck, Vincent, your "math" is wrong (and isnt even "math").
If you did it infinite number of times then you should have the same result as a pretty simple a priori calculation, if not your sheet is wrong somewhere.
Seriously:P
|
I think you'd even be hard pressed to find a japanese person who'd choose a fencing sword over a katana though there's a very legitimate argument to be made that a fencer could hold his own against a samurai.
Modern boxing evolved from the bare-knuckle prize-fights popular in England, and that became popular after prize-fighting with swords became illegal.
There were two sorts of sword combat used for prize-fighting: broadsword and buckler (swash---buckle) and smallsword (the modern fencing foil is closest).
Actually, prize-fighting with the smallsword was made illegal first! A broadsword could cause broken bones, nasty wounds, even amputations ('accidents' were common). But an 'accident' with a smallsword killed you dead! The smallsword is used to thrust, is very fast, an a successful hit literally ran you through. It might not hurt as much at the time as a broadsword breaking a bone, but you'd die of peritonitis in three days and there was nothing anyone at the time could do to save you. A fencer hit like this would say, 'You've killed me, sir!', even when it didn't hurt so much; he knew that he had three days to get his affairs in order.
If I had to choose a sword to go up against a katana I'd choose a smallsword. The thrust beats the cut, it's made to parry where a katana is not, and fast as a katana is, a smallsword is faster; partly because of the weight/balance, partly because a thrust doesn't need to waste time on a backswing.
This isn't an auto win for the smallsword! The katana is a superb weapon!
Eventually, it comes down to the wielder not the weapon, but a great craftsman wants great tools, and he needs the right tool for the job.
It is easier to confirm a critical using a weapon of a threat range of 15-20 than it is to confirm a critical using a weapon with a threat range of 19-20.Why would that be? Both can take critical focus! If you compare crit focus vs no crit focus sure your damage is different! Especially if the difference is 10% vs 30%!
I guess what he means is that if you have enough threats, you're more likely to get more chances to confirm a crit. With more chances to confirm, you're more likely to confirm. This is possible, especially if you can only confirm on a 20.
But I think it's one thing to say "how often will I confirm a critical hit" and another to say "how often will a given critical hit confirm". In the first case, you will confirm more critical hits on average if you have more chances to crit. In the second case, threat range has no bearing on how often you will confirm a given critical hit.
Regarding the discussion of japanese vs european blades:
One of the things that is rarely considered (and has no effect in the game system) is the environment in which they were made and the way they were used.
Yes, the katana is sharper and holds it's edge better. It is more resistant to breaking. However, it is also horrendously expensive. It is only indended to be used by the priviledged few. And was only intended for use in a comparitively small number of actual battles against a totally different style of armor.
Many european blades have often been described as a slightly edged crow bar. However, it is much less expensive. Any one with any real wealth could afford one. They were often expected to be used to beat through heavy steel armor by main force of impact as the knight rode past. Functionally the edge was to concentrate the force of impact not really to cut with an edge.
Neither blade would really have worked all that well for the other use.
Now the Keen greatsword vs keen falchion debate is interesting because each weapon has a specific advantage. The greatsword has the advantage of greater damage die type where falchion has superior crit confirmation percentages. The important part here is that both weapons have a x2 so we're removing that part of the puzzle, so it's a much simpler answer.
The average damage for keen greatsword with critical weapon focus is
7+(7*4/20*8/20) (average damage+the prospects of double damage if a 13 would confirm)
7.56. percentage chance of a critical is .08 here but it hits hard. Will it be hard enough?
Keen Falchion is
5+(5x6/20*10x20) with criticals happening 15% of the time it criticals nearly twice as much, but does it matter when the average extra damage is so low?
5.75!
It seems that clearly a weapon that averages 7 damage per swing could outdamage a falchion without ever critting at all. I put it on the table and it plays out appropriately over time presuming both weapons would hit on an attack roll of 11
hold on. the question wasnt falchion it was falcata eh?
ok. so
so keen greatsword is average 7 damage, c17 x2
with critical focus becomes average 7 damage, c13, x2
7+(7x4/20*8/20)
7.56
keen falcata is d8 (average 4.5) c17 x3
4.5+(9*4/20*8/20)
7.74
here damage modifier shows that it can outperform raw weapon damage because in this instance (between these two weapons) the chance of a critical hit is the same. This is why people love the falcata so much.
If we toss my favorite keen katana into the mix with its
d8 c15 x2
thats 4.5+(4.5*6/20*10/20)
5.175... awww...
having the giant threat range of a keen katana doesnt outperform the damage multiplier of a keen falcata with critical focus and is in fact not a superior choice of the three so I don't think pathfinder is showing bias towards asian weapons.
|
If you do them correctly.You can do all the adjustments to different variables in regular calculations as well.
The same applies to your spreadsheet as well :-)
Wasum isn't the only one telling you that you've got it wrong - there are other posters here (and in every previous thread about criticals) who disagree with you.
Bottom line: If your spreadsheet doesn't show that 18-20/x2 has exactly the same average damage as 20/x4, then your spreadsheet is flawed.
And, in any case, there's no need to use stochastic modelling to work out the expected damage - it's a pretty simple bit of mathematics to come up with an exact formula. Basically, each of the examples I quote above (18-20/x2 & 20/x4) add 15% to the expected damage. It's not really any harder to compare different weapons (with different damage dice), either.
Interesting.. So if we took away the critical focus the lead returns to greatsword and katana outperforms falcata...
7+7X4/20*4/20 =7.28 for the Keen Greatsword
4.5+9X4/20*4/20 =4.86 for the Keen Falcata
4.5+4.5*6/20*6/20 =4.905 for the Keen Katana
And if we then took away keen, the same is true. Falcata is slightly behind.
7+7x2/20*2/20 7.07
4.5+9x2/20x2/20 4.59
4.5+4.5*3/20*3/20 4.60125
how about crit focus no keen....
7+7x2/20*6/20 7.21
4.5+9x2/20*6/20 4.77
4.5+4.5*3/20*7/20 4.73
So the lesson here seems to be if you have critical focus its not enough. the multiplier still isnt more important than the threat range but if you keen it up that extra threat range is enough that the weakest of these three blades becomes the wrecking ball. If you dont take critical focus and keen together then take the hardest hitting weapon you can because giant threat ranges cant compensate for core damage. Clearly even if you've got a keen falcata, or if you're rocking crit focus falcata, you're still not playing with the big boys, but put the three together and even crit focus keen greatsword cant keep up. Odd but true. What a wonky little puzzle.Cant say i'm not a little shocked and disappointed at how poorly keen and crit focus keep up when used with a katana, but it sure is fascinating to see how those numbers play out. Definitely a scenario that plays out the opposite of how i'd expect.
In regards to JohnF's specific example though
lets take a d8 weapon with c18x2 and a d8 weapon with c20x4
4.5+4.5*3/20*3/20=4.601
4.5+13.5*1/20*1/20=4.53375
make them keen
4.5+4.5*6/20*6/20=4.905
4.5+13.5*2/20*2/20=4.635
add critical focus
4.5+4.5*6/20*10/20=5.175
4.5+13.5*2/20*6/20=4.905
Bottom line is (core weapon damage being equal) we can perk em up with crit focus and keen doesnt matter, not only are they not the same, 18-20/x2 is superior to 20/x4 every time.
lets take a d8 weapon with c18x2 and a d8 weapon with c20x4
4.5+4.5*3/20*3/20=4.601
4.5+13.5*1/20*1/20=4.53375
I think what you mean to do here is this:
Assume that a natural 2 will always hit.
18-20/2x -- 4.5 avg damage * (0.8 -- we have 16 possible regular hits, remember to fail on natural one) + 4.5 avg damage * (0.0075 -- we have 3 possible threats, but each threat will be a regular hit on a natural one confirmation, so we factor that in) + 9 avg crit damage * (0.1425 -- the chance we get a successful crit) = 3.6 + 0.03375 + 1.2825 = 4.91625
sanity check -- .8 + .1425 + .0075 = .95, which is correct (5% chance for a natural one)
20/4x -- 4.5 avg damage * (0.9 -- we have 18 possible regular hits, remember to fail on natural one) + 4.5 avg damage * (0.0025 -- we have 1 possible threat, but it will be a regular hit on a natural one confirmation, so we factor that in) + 18 avg crit damage * (0.0475 -- the chance we get a successful crit) = 4.05 + 0.01125 + 0.855 = 4.91625
Thus, in terms of pure math, 18-20/2x = 20/4x
|
|
@Vincent Takeda: I'm trying to understand why you seem convinced that 18-20x2 is better (or any different) than 20x4.
The best guess I have is that you think the confirmation roll is a d20 roll that, if you get within the crit range again, confirms the crit!
Just so we're clear:-
To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.
And while i'm thinking of it we better factor in the fact that a keen weapon has to be a +1 weapon first. I'm not sure if you add the +1 to damage before or after the crit multiplyer and I'm also not sure if you add strength damage before or after the multiplyer.
Goodness!
And while i'm thinking of it we better factor in the fact that a keen weapon has to be a +1 weapon first. I'm not sure if you add the +1 to damage before or after the crit multiplyer and I'm also not sure if you add strength damage before or after the multiplyer.
A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.
Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.
So yes you would multiply the +1.
But I *assure* you mathematically 20/4x = 18-20/2x. I did the exhaustive math above.
@Vincent Takeda: I'm trying to understand why you seem convinced that 18-20x2 is better (or any different) than 20x4.
The best guess I have is that you think the confirmation roll is a d20 roll that, if you get within the crit range again, confirms the crit!
That seems to be the case from this post:
lets take a d8 weapon with c18x2 and a d8 weapon with c20x4
4.5+4.5*3/20*3/20=4.601
4.5+13.5*1/20*1/20=4.53375
make them keen
4.5+4.5*6/20*6/20=4.905
4.5+13.5*2/20*2/20=4.635
add critical focus
4.5+4.5*6/20*10/20=5.175
4.5+13.5*2/20*6/20=4.905
Note that the repeated 3/20 in the first, 1/20 in the second, and then the repeats when those values are doubled. I think he is treating the chance to threaten as the chance to confirm.
Perhaps we should think of them like this...
If H is the chance to hit, then H is also the chance to confirm a threat,
If A is the average damage of the weapon without the crit, and
If C is the chance to crit, then 20/x2 has a formula like HA + CHA or, spelled out (chance to hit)x(avg damage)+(chance to crit)x(chance to confirm/hit)x(avg damage)
20/x2 has HA + CHA
19-20/x2 has HA + 2CHA (double C, same damage as 20/x2)
20/x3 has HA + CH2A (same C, double A as 20/x2)
18-20/x2 has HA + 3CHA etc
20/x4 has HA + CH3A etc
All you need is a term reshuffle to show that, for any given H and A, 18-20/x2 equals 20/x4. And multiplication allows that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And they say thaco was difficult
|
|
In regards to JohnF's specific example though
lets take a d8 weapon with c18x2 and a d8 weapon with c20x4
4.5+4.5*3/20*3/20=4.601
4.5+13.5*1/20*1/20=4.53375
make them keen
4.5+4.5*6/20*6/20=4.905
4.5+13.5*2/20*2/20=4.635
add critical focus
4.5+4.5*6/20*10/20=5.175
4.5+13.5*2/20*6/20=4.905Bottom line is (core weapon damage being equal) we can perk em up with crit focus and keen doesnt matter, not only are they not the same, 18-20/x2 is superior to 20/x4 every time.
Nope - bottom line is that you are still calculating the wrong thing.
The confirmation roll for a critical uses the "to hit" probability, not the "critical threat" probability.
And they say thaco was difficult
For the average player, THAC0 was more difficult. The average player really isn't doing DPR calculations or comparing average damage per crit, they're just playing the game. But some people really do enjoy the number crunching.
|
|
One further point:
While 18-20/x2 and 20/x4 are usually equivalent, Critical Focus does affect things. In fact, as it increases the chance of confirming a critical by a flat +4, it actually has more payoff for the high crit-multiplier weapon!
So if you have the Critical Focus feat, you're going to do more damage, on average, if you choose a 20/x4 weapon over an 18-20/x2.
One further point:While 18-20/x2 and 20/x4 are usually equivalent, Critical Focus does affect things. In fact, as it increases the chance of confirming a critical by a flat +4, it actually has more payoff for the high crit-multiplier weapon!
So if you have the Critical Focus feat, you're going to do more damage, on average, if you choose a 20/x4 weapon over an 18-20/x2.
No, the calculation should still be the same for both weapons.
If we add a term I to indicate the increased chance of confirming a threat once we've gotten the threat, the full chance of confirming is (H+I) and we simply replace H in each of the calculations with (H+I).18-20/x2: HA + 3C(H+I)A = HA+3CA(H+I)
20/x4: HA + C(H+I)3A = HA+3CA(H+I)
And I can still shuffle the multipliers any way I want to get the same results. I end up adding an amount equal to 3CAI to both damage calculations.
IF X = Y, THEN ZX=ZY
Simple enough. If you establish that two Crit multipliers are the same, then applying the same scaler to both sides will not imbalance said equality.
Yay high school math!
|
|
No, the calculation should still be the same for both weapons.
One further point:While 18-20/x2 and 20/x4 are usually equivalent, Critical Focus does affect things. In fact, as it increases the chance of confirming a critical by a flat +4, it actually has more payoff for the high crit-multiplier weapon!
So if you have the Critical Focus feat, you're going to do more damage, on average, if you choose a 20/x4 weapon over an 18-20/x2.
Yeah - I'd just got there. The flat +4 adds to the base hit chance, which is the same for both weapons (I'd mistakenly added it to the threat chance in my erroneous calculation).
Good - I still prefer the extended threat range, because it has other benefits. I'm glad I can continue to make that choice without feeling that I might be missing out on something.
If the roll to confirm a critical isnt attempting to hit the threat range but instead is only attempting to roll a normal hit then yes. My assumptions of how confirmation of critical hits is very incorrect.
Must be because I only play mages for the most part. I appreciate the correction. For some reason I always thought that if you rolled a natural 20 that you had to confirm it by rolling another natural 20. Was this kind of thing handled differently in 3.5?
I've one shot the last two BBEG's I scored a crit on. That may be influenced by class though.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.
That's easy at low levels. But not so easy at high levels, unless you are using a highly specialized build such as charging with a lance. At 15+ a BBEG can have easily 300+hp. Doing 150 in a regular hit isn't normal.
|
|
If the roll to confirm a critical isnt attempting to hit the threat range but instead is only attempting to roll a normal hit then yes. My assumptions of how confirmation of critical hits is very incorrect.
Must be because I only play mages for the most part. I appreciate the correction. For some reason I always thought that if you rolled a natural 20 that you had to confirm it by rolling another natural 20. Was this kind of thing handled differently in 3.5?
(In my best 'Inch High Private Eye' voice....)
As. I. Suspected...!
: )
(and, no, PF uses exactly the same critical hit system as 3.5)
|
|
If the roll to confirm a critical isnt attempting to hit the threat range but instead is only attempting to roll a normal hit then yes. My assumptions of how confirmation of critical hits is very incorrect.
Must be because I only play mages for the most part.
Mages need to know this stuff too. There are a lot of spells that require you to make a touch attack (melee or ranged) to deliver the spell, and those attacks are subject to all the usual critical hit rules (with a threat range of just 20, and a damage multiplier of 2).
|
Why would the Nodachi be disallowed?Why should a weapon do more damage just because the are invented by far eastern cultures? I just do not understand the hype about japanese weapons and samurai, they were just sabers and knights.
Isn't the falchion an eastern weapon too? It and the scimitar seem like the swords that were favored by the Persian army. Did Europe adopt the falchion too?
How far east exactly are we talking here?
Didn't even notice the nodachi. It is better than the falchion. Might have to rework my weapon for my 2 barbarians right now, to nodachi instead.
There are many factors that will determine what weapon is better for your character. Personally I tend to go with whatever weapon I think fits the character personality. Uncivilized fighters usually wield axes, more civilized fighters use long/short/great swords based on there fighting styles, while Finesse type characters tend to run rapiers/shortswords. Fire themed characters usually get scimitars/falcons, Earthy characters get hammers/picks ect.
However when optimizing your threat ranges, you have TONS of variables to take into account. Years ago, I actually went though and typed up some tables to compare some of these factors. I'll dig though my old files and see if I can find something to post with it later tonight.
After finding my old caculations, I soon realized it was listed with the intent for a "Disciple of Dispater" prestige class. I was comparing a 17-20x4 crit range Scythe, 13-20x2 Greatsword, or 9-20x2 Falchion over 400 swings (to get one result of each dice roll per threat, 20 per threat)
At such insane crit ranges thought out all of the test, the Scythe appeared the better option. The Falchion was 2nd best until the 50/50 hit chance mark. At that point, the Greatsword's damage was doing more than the increased threat of the Falchion.
Since I've got nothing better to do, and I can't sleep I'll go ahead and re-do the test using a Greatsword and Greataxe with and without improved crit for those who may be curious.
Here are the results of round 1, no improved critical. I'll try to get with improved critical up some time later.
2d6(7) +X 19-20x2 Greatsword
1d12(6.5) +X 20x3 Great Ax
Test: +X = Total bonus to damage.
weapon dmg rolls will be averaged.
400 swings per test.
This allows for a roll of 1-20 roll on each threaten for crit, and 20 rolls for non-threatening rolls.
Summery: After 400 attacks-
5+ to hit
Crit hits: Greatsword: 30 Greataxe: 15
Total Damage done-
+0 dmg Greatsword: 2310 Greataxe: 2130
+5 dmg Greatsword: 3960 Greataxe: 3795
+10 dmg Greatsword: 5610 Greataxe: 5445
+20 dmg Greatsword: 8910 Greataxe: 8754
10+ to hit
Crit hits: Greatsword: 20 Greataxe: 10
Total Damage done-
+0 dmg Greatsword: 1510 Greataxe: 1420
+5 dmg Greatsword: 2640 Greataxe: 2530
+10 dmg Greatsword: 3740 Greataxe: 3630
+20 dmg Greatsword: 5940 Greataxe: 5830
15+ to hit
Crit hits: Greatsword: 10 Greataxe: 5
Total Damage done-
+0 dmg Greatsword: 770 Greataxe: 710
+5 dmg Greatsword: 1320 Greataxe: 1265
+10 dmg Greatsword: 1870 Greataxe: 1815
+20 dmg Greatsword: 2970 Greataxe: 2915
-------------
Hits: 300 (assume 5+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 260
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 30
Total Normal- 270
dmg per hit- 7
dmg per crit- 14
non-crit dmg= 1890
crit dmg= 420
average dmg total= 2310
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 280
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 5
Crits- 15
Total Normal- 285
dmg per hit- 6.5
dmg per crit- 18.5
non-crit dmg= 1852.5
crit dmg= 277.5
average dmg total= 2130
-------------
Hits: 200 (assume 10+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 160
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 20
Crits- 20
Total Normal- 180
dmg per hit- 7
dmg per crit- 14
non-crit dmg= 1260
crit dmg= 250
average dmg total= 1510
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 180
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 190
dmg per hit- 6.5
dmg per crit- 18.5
non-crit dmg= 1235
crit dmg= 185
average dmg total= 1420
-------------
Hits: 100 (assume 15+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 60
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 30
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 90
dmg per hit- 7
dmg per crit- 14
non-crit dmg= 630
crit dmg= 140
average dmg total= 770
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 80
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 15
Crits- 5
Total Normal- 95
dmg per hit- 6.5
dmg per crit- 18.5
non-crit dmg= 617.5
crit dmg= 92.5
average dmg total= 710
-------------
Hits: 300 (assume 5+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 260
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 30
Total Normal- 270
dmg per hit- 12
dmg per crit- 24
non-crit dmg= 3240
crit dmg= 720
average dmg total= 3960
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 280
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 5
Crits- 15
Total Normal- 285
dmg per hit- 11.5
dmg per crit- 34.5
non-crit dmg= 3277.5
crit dmg= 517.5
average dmg total= 3795
-------------
Hits: 200 (assume 10+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 160
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 20
Crits- 20
Total Normal- 180
dmg per hit- 12
dmg per crit- 24
non-crit dmg= 2160
crit dmg= 480
average dmg total= 2640
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 180
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 190
dmg per hit- 11.5
dmg per crit- 34.5
non-crit dmg= 2185
crit dmg= 345
average dmg total= 2530
-------------
Hits: 100 (assume 15+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 60
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 30
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 90
dmg per hit- 12
dmg per crit- 24
non-crit dmg= 1080
crit dmg= 240
average dmg total= 1320
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 80
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 15
Crits- 5
Total Normal- 95
dmg per hit- 11.5
dmg per crit- 34.5
non-crit dmg= 1092.5
crit dmg= 172.5
average dmg total= 1265
-------------
Hits: 300 (assume 5+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 260
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 30
Total Normal- 270
dmg per hit- 17
dmg per crit- 34
non-crit dmg= 4590
crit dmg= 1020
average dmg total= 5610
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 280
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 5
Crits- 15
Total Normal- 285
dmg per hit- 16.5
dmg per crit- 49.5
non-crit dmg= 4702.5
crit dmg= 742.5
average dmg total= 5445
-------------
Hits: 200 (assume 10+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 160
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 20
Crits- 20
Total Normal- 180
dmg per hit- 17
dmg per crit- 34
non-crit dmg= 3060
crit dmg= 680
average dmg total= 3740
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 180
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 190
dmg per hit- 16.5
dmg per crit- 49.5
non-crit dmg= 3135
crit dmg= 495
average dmg total= 3630
-------------
Hits: 100 (assume 15+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 60
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 30
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 90
dmg per hit- 17
dmg per crit- 34
non-crit dmg= 1530
crit dmg= 340
average dmg total= 1870
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 80
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 15
Crits- 5
Total Normal- 95
dmg per hit- 16.5
dmg per crit- 49.5
non-crit dmg= 1567.5
crit dmg= 247.5
average dmg total= 1815
-------------
Hits: 300 (assume 5+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 260
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 30
Total Normal- 270
dmg per hit- 27
dmg per crit- 54
non-crit dmg= 7290
crit dmg= 1620
average dmg total= 8910
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 280
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 5
Crits- 15
Total Normal- 285
dmg per hit- 26.5
dmg per crit- 79.5
non-crit dmg= 7552.5
crit dmg= 1192.5
average dmg total= 8754
-------------
Hits: 200 (assume 10+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 160
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 20
Crits- 20
Total Normal- 180
dmg per hit- 27
dmg per crit- 54
non-crit dmg= 4860
crit dmg= 1080
average dmg total= 5940
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 180
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 10
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 190
dmg per hit- 26.5
dmg per crit- 79.5
non-crit dmg= 5035
crit dmg= 795
average dmg total= 5830
-------------
Hits: 100 (assume 15+ hits) average damage, average crits hit
ººº Greatsword ººº
Non Threats- 60
Crit Threats- 40
Failed Crits- 30
Crits- 10
Total Normal- 90
dmg per hit- 27
dmg per crit- 54
non-crit dmg= 2430
crit dmg= 540
average dmg total= 2970
ººº Greataxe ººº
Non Threats- 80
Crit Threats- 20
Failed Crits- 15
Crits- 5
Total Normal- 95
dmg per hit- 26.5
dmg per crit- 79.5
non-crit dmg= 2517.5
crit dmg= 397.5
average dmg total= 2915
Yeah... I really need to get some kind of spreadsheet for this kind of stuff lol.
If the roll to confirm a critical isnt attempting to hit the threat range but instead is only attempting to roll a normal hit then yes. My assumptions of how confirmation of critical hits is very incorrect.
Must be because I only play mages for the most part.
Mages need to know this stuff too. There are a lot of spells that require you to make a touch attack (melee or ranged) to deliver the spell, and those attacks are subject to all the usual critical hit rules (with a threat range of just 20, and a damage multiplier of 2).
Now that you mention it as I go through my spell list I seem to even play my wizard in a way where I avoid this semantic... I seem to focus more on buff spells for folks that wont resist it than on spells that attack or affect others... I consider a spell that could be saved against to be a wasted spell if I could have unilaterally and uncomprimisingly buffed a party member instead. I've never been much of an evoker or a touch attack caster so even as a wizard my exposure to crit threat appears to have been minimized by my spell selection...
I appear to not know much about it because my natural casting predilections avoid spells that can be defended against in the first place. Fascinating.
|
IMO i prefer the better crits because later i can enchant to increase the threat range a little anyways so i rather when i crit to hit like a Mack truck then crit often.
Now there are classes that I would prefer moe crits over better crits and sometimes your build concept plays a role as well.
If I am using a twohanded weapon I want better crits since I am moe then likely using a fighter which means the crit mulitplier is only going to get better.
How can you play this game without noticing the critical rules? I mean, at your table there probably happen crits in every session:P
And confirming a 20 is so unlikely that its likely to not have a crit within 20 levels of playing at all.
How can you play this game without noticing the critical rules? I mean, at your table there probably happen crits in every session:P
And confirming a 20 is so unlikely that its likely to not have a crit within 20 levels of playing at all.
Not quite sure how to answer that... My playstyle is more chill? I play my guy and let the mechanics the other players live by be handled by the gm and those players? I've never been interested in the battlemat and far less interested still in having entire classes built around performance on a battlemat... And as this thread has clearly pointed out it doesnt matter if I'm a skilled number cruncher if I don't understand the mechanics of the numbers being crunched so pathfinder makes me less number crunchy? I guess I don't care that much?
That kinda sounds ironic that pathfinder makes me not care about pathfinder mechanics, when it seems to strongly play to an audience thats more battlemat gamist and crunchy than not.
Fascinating.
I told my gm that after learning from this forum that between a properly skilled and specced falcata, a greatsword and my favorite katana that the katana winds up being the weakest option i'd still choose the katana anyway because I like them better and he said 'good'...
|
|
I told my gm that after learning from this forum that between a properly skilled and specced falcata, a greatsword and my favorite katana that the katana winds up being the weakest option i'd still choose the katana anyway because I like them better and he said 'good'...
Excellent!
This is without doubt the most important thing about playing a PC; thinking your own character is 'cool' is what matters!
What other people think about your PC matters only as much as you want it to.
Why would the Nodachi be disallowed?Why should a weapon do more damage just because the are invented by far eastern cultures? I just do not understand the hype about japanese weapons and samurai, they were just sabers and knights.Isn't the falchion an eastern weapon too? It and the scimitar seem like the swords that were favored by the Persian army. Did Europe adopt the falchion too?
How far east exactly are we talking here?
Yes, the falchion is a middle eastern weapon, but it's not plain better then the greatsword. The far eastern ones are. That's why I ban them (value wise, I allow someone to wield a katana, it just has the same values as the scimitar).
If you want to compare two weapons, base damage vs better crit characteristics you can approximate it like this:
1. Crit Class: Count the number of chances on the d20 that you threaten (18-20 gives a value of 3, 15-20 a value of 6 etc). Multiply that number with your crit multiplier -1 (/x3 gives you a value of 2). So the falcata has a "crit class" of 4 (highest among all weapons)
2. Base damage: Calculate the average base damage (greatsword has 7, falcata has 4.5 etc)
3. Difference between two weapons: Calculate the difference in base damage (greatsword vs falcata is 2.5) and crit class (greatsword vs falcata is 2)
4. Strength bonus to offset: Multiply the difference in base damage with 20, divide the difference by crit class**.
5. Now you have a approximate* Strength bonus to offset lower base damage against higher crits. If you get a zero in 3. this whole thing makes no sense**.
If you have improved crit, just double the crit class, to count in crit focus multiply the crit class with 1.15***.
*Approximate because the actual base damage does matter in this calculation, this is a quick fix, if you want sure numbers use my post on the last page.
** Because the case of crit class difference or base damage difference zero makes no sense, you get a value of zero or divide by zero. If you have no difference in one of those values you already know which weapon is the better one, why bother calculating it?
***This is an approximation, the actual impact of crit focus depends on your hit chance (so you get a function as a result). For simplicity 1.15 will hit it.
Except the falcata is 1 handed, so less damage than a 2 handed, and it's exotic, which many classes and builds don't want to waste feats/ traits for. But in that regard, yes it's the best, otherwise for everyday martial weapon, it's the falchion at 18-20/x2.
The approximation above means you may wish to consider to wield a falcata in two hands. It has "just" 0.5 less base damage (offset at ~10 bonus w/o feats), behaves better when enlarged and will get you ~2 extra damage by mid levels if you focus your character on damage bonuses and crit feats, slightly more on later levels.
Another thing about the falcata, and other exotic weapons:
Don't forget the Cracked Opalescent White Pyramid Ioun Stone takes one exotic weapon and makes it a martial weapon for you, and it costs only 1,500 gp. So if you are already playing a full-BAB class it's a lot cheaper than a feat.
Peet