| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This post mainly concerns the axes, hammers, kukri, machete, pick, flail, and other "top heavy" weapons.
I'm scrolling through the SRD weapon list (ignoring the exotic and eastern weapons for now), and I thought that some of the weapons have some unfair representations.
Take, for example, the greatsword versus the greataxe. Statistically speaking, the greatsword is a superior weapon due to its consistent damage. Everyone who makes a great-axe-wielding character is going to have to accept that he is giving up some of his damage potential. Supposedly, this is because a greataxe is more difficult to wield than a greatsword, but it really tears people apart with a good blow, represented by the x3 crit multiplier. I feel that there should be a patch that would make great-axes and other such weapons worth playing without overshadowing the greatsword (or dagger, etc).
Ever look at a picture of a cutlass? Why don't you google one right now. The blade ends in a tip, and gets wider as it gets closer to the hilt. Most of the blade's weight is closer to the middle of the blade than it is to the tip. Now compare that to a machete. See how the blade widens as it gets close to the tip, before tapering off to a point? Most of the weight is on the top of the blade, making it a heck of a lot easier to chop through brush.
The techniques in using them are also a bit different. Anyone who's ever cut meat will know what I'm talking about. You are, in general, much more efficient when you add horizontal movement to downward force. This is the technique used for many swords. They don't chop, they cut. To help visualize this, make a karate chop to your palm. Then stiffen your hand, and stab your palm with it. A cleaver (or axe), on the other hand, doesn't use any perpendicular force, and simply cleaves through food in a single downward blow. It is a lot easier to cut through bone with a meat cleaver than a chef's knife. (Sorry for the food-related crap, but I'm really hungry right now.)
I hope to reflect this distinction with a slight modification to "top heavy" weapons. Any weapon with a noticeable distribution of weight away from the hand holding it receives a better strength modifier in the series below:
x1/2-->x1-->x1.5-->x2
However, to balance this, the weapon also receives an attack bonus penalty equal to the weapon's crit modifier. (This probably screws up balance again, but I needed a way to prevent the buff from being too op and I couldn't think of anything better.)
So Betty the Fighter with 18 Str would deal 2d6+6 (avg 13*) damage with her greatsword. Meanwhile, Garry the Barbarian (18 Str) with a greataxe would deal 1d12+8(avg 14.5*), albeit with a -3 attack bonus penalty. But Kazmuk the evil cleric, with 14 Str, will deal 1d8+4(avg 8.5*) with his heavy mace, but only with a -2 to his attack roll.
So basically, the new Greataxe vs Greatsword is still similar to the old one. The greatsword is more reliable, but the greataxe deals consistently higher damage (not consistent damage). I think, eventually, as stats get higher the heavy weapons would win out, but at least both sides will be an option for a while (I hope).
The last problem is what the quality will be called. It can't be "chop," because some bludgeoning weapons apply. I don't like "cleave" due to the association with the feat. Maybe...weighted? Please let me know what you think!
weighted could work, i could also see driven or forceful as well. oh and i like this idea alot.
I suggest "Heft."
I suggest "Heft."
curse you lincoln, that was the word I was struggling to think of!(shakes fist in mock outrage)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking a -3 to hit will nearly guarantee that you will always do less damage per round with "top heavy" weapons as you've described them, than with typical ones.
A -3 to hit is actually dramatic enough that I'd bet using the original Greataxe stats would even outdamage the new version you're proposing.
The problem is that hit chance basically multiplies the damage you deal. Here, let me take your example of a Barbarian with 18 strength and extend it to include hit chance and everything.
Let's assume level 1, and obviously everyone using a two-handed weapon takes power attack. So:
Original Greataxe
+4 to hit, 1d12+9 damage (15.5 average)
Your Greataxe
+1 to hit, 1d12+11 damage (17.5 average)
If you're facing someone with AC 10, the original greataxe will hit 75% of the time, while your alteration will only hit 60% of the time.
That means the original Greataxe does ~12.6 damage per swing, while your version deals only ~11.2 per swing. And the trick of it is, the more damage you deal, the more valuable hit chance becomes.
If you want to keep the higher potential damage (using a d12) while keeping the average damage the same as a Greatsword, you could always look at 4e's solution. They called it the "Brutal" property, which allowed you to re-roll dice that came up certain numbers.
For example, 1d12 with brutal 1 would allow you to re-roll the die if it came up 1. This makes the actual range of values, 2-12, which averages 7, just like 2d6 (which likewise is 2-12, but with a different distribution).
what if it was just a -1 to hit instead?
what if it was just a -1 to hit instead?
It would make the top heavy weapons slightly kind of worth it at level 1, but as you get more and more damage, the -1 will eventually kill it.
Attack bonuses are more valuable the higher your damage is. Damage bonuses are more valuable the higher your hit chance is.
Hmmm...how about swapping the attack penalty for a dex limit? Because you're encumbered with a weapon that is fairly unbalanced. Oh, and I love "heft."
what if it was just a -1 to hit instead?It would make the top heavy weapons slightly kind of worth it at level 1, but as you get more and more damage, the -1 will eventually kill it.
Attack bonuses are more valuable the higher your damage is. Damage bonuses are more valuable the higher your hit chance is.
Really? I thought the -2/-3 would eventually become less significant one your attack bonus becomes +8, +11, +15...
Oh, and brutal sounds like it might work. Since you clearly have a better grasp of the mathematics, what would it be like if there was simply no penalty, only a damage buff? Remember, I'm trying for both sides to be options, without a clear winner.
Where the tip-weighted weapon suffers, is not to hit, but on recovery, and preparation for the next strike. So maybe increase the damage as you suggested and couple it with a -1 to AC.
Actually what I think I would do is leave them as is, and give that type of weapon a dmg bonus for power attack.
Really? I thought the -2/-3 would eventually become less significant one your attack bonus becomes +8, +11, +15...
When your attack bonuses become +8, +11, +15, etc., your enemy's AC is similarly rising.
Unless you miss only on a 1 or hit only on a 20, every +1/-1 is equally valuable from an average damage standpoint. Going from needing a 3 to hit to a 2 to hit adds the same amount of average damage as going from needing an 18 to needing a 17.
Oh, and brutal sounds like it might work. Since you clearly have a better grasp of the mathematics, what would it be like if there was simply no penalty, only a damage buff? Remember, I'm trying for both sides to be options, without a clear winner.
If you just increased the Strength multiplier on weapons like the Greataxe, it would be flat out better than the Greatsword as long as you had more than 11 Strength.
The difference in average damage between a Greatsword and a Greataxe is only .5 (2d6 averages 7, while 1d12 averages 6.5). Adding anything more than .5 damage will tip the scales in the other direction.
Where the tip-weighted weapon suffers, is not to hit, but on recovery, and preparation for the next strike. So maybe increase the damage as you suggested and couple it with a -1 to AC.
Actually what I think I would do is leave them as is, and give that type of weapon a dmg bonus for power attack.
This sounds sounds excellent. Then people will choose between higher attack or defense. Should it be a simple AC penalty, a dex limit, or something else?
Power Attack would make it unbalanced, since pretty much every melee class uses power attack.
Just a -1 to AC. I have no idea how it would change things, statistically, though.
|
The difference in average damage between a Greatsword and a Greataxe is only .5 (2d6 averages 7, while 1d12 averages 6.5). Adding anything more than .5 damage will tip the scales in the other direction.
and Brutal 1 increases damage output by 0.5 on average?
if so, rather than make Power Attack even cooler, this sounds like a fair option. the drawback is adding another roll to the combat... but made up for the fact that you will be re-rolling 1s!... imagine that sucker coming up 1 then re-rolling to 12. brutal heft indeed!
finally, the last statistical difference between 2d6 and 1d12 (with brutal 1) is the shape of the curve. the sword will do average damage more often, and the axe will have the exact same average but a more random outcome. in fact, this pattern roughly correlates with the statistical difference between a 'keen' critical and an 'impact' critical. this is a very interesting way to doubly reinforce the difference between 'slash' and 'heft'.