Going strictly by numbers, it seems like axes are always a worse choice than swords, as long as you have a choice between the two. A longsword and battleaxe have the same damage die, but the longsword crits twice as often (a 100% improvement) while the battleaxe only crits for one more die (a 50% improvement).
It gets worse when you look at the greatsword and greataxe. 2d6, on average, will give you better sustained damage than 1d12, in addition to the crit advantage mentioned above. Am I missing something here, or are axes just mechanically inferior to swords?
This is not a rules question.
Also, there are certain circumstances where you want a higher crit multiplier. One such circumstance is a 19th level two-handed fighter, who can automatically threaten a critical.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that your analysis of the probablities is correct. My understanding is that a 20/x3 critical is roughly the same as a 19-20/x2 critical.
2d6 produces a bell curve clustered around 7. d12 has an equal chance of generating each number. Long swords are more reliable damage dealers, but great axes have a better chance to do max damage.
Trust me, they are not inferior. The first time you suffer a critical hit from a handaxe, battle axe or greataxe you will almost certainly notice the difference.
My players are VERY careful when faced with an axe wielding opponent.
First time you see a x3 crit end a really bad fight before it starts you'll understand the value of the axe..
- Torger
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because emphatically stating
'you have my falcata'
to your brother or sister in arms just does not have the same ring to it
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's plenty of threads on these forums that have gone over the math of crit range vs crit multiplier. A 19-20x2 and 20x3 are basically the same same thing. Don't look at the damage die as a gauge for how much damage a weapon will be doing. Most damage will be coming from other sources, like Str, weapon enchant, feats, class features and so on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A longsword crits on a 19 or 20 for x2 damage, so 10 percent of the time you get 1xdamage extra. A battleaxe crits on a 20 for x3 damage, so 5 percent of the time you get 2xdamage extra.
Theoretically these are the same, but scoring crits more often is better for a couple reasons - crit effects, and less wasted damage on low HP targets.
Though it requires exotic weapon proficiency, a falcata (crit 19-20,x3) is strictly better than a longsword.
Anyone basing their chracter progression on critical feats will want a weapon that crits on 18-20, then take Improved Critical or use a keen weapon.
When paired with someone with Butterfly's Sting, you may look for a weapon with a high crit multiplier rather than large crit range.
I don't know that your analysis of the probablities is correct. My understanding is that a 20/x3 critical is roughly the same as a 19-20/x2 critical.
2d6 produces a bell curve clustered around 7. d12 has an equal chance of generating each number. Long swords are more reliable damage dealers, but great axes have a better chance to do max damage.
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see a problem with the math. The axe has a 5% chance to threaten a critical. The sword has a 10% chance to threaten a critical. The multiplier is only 50% higher. I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also explain to your butterfly stinging dual-wielding +1 Keen Kukri flank partner why you are rocking a x2 crit multiplier bro
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see a problem with the math. The axe has a 5% chance to threaten a critical. The sword has a 10% chance to threaten a critical. The multiplier is only 50% higher. I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.
That "50%" comes from comparing the wrong numbers, btw. It's +100% damage vs. +200% damage. It's *1 additional damage vs. *2 additional damage.
In a statistically simple world, the battleaxe and longsword are exactly even in the long run. But that's assuming no crit riders and no overkill, no significant DR or need-20-to-hit opponents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A longsword crits on a 19 or 20 for x2 damage, so 10 percent of the time you get 1xdamage extra. A battleaxe crits on a 20 for x3 damage, so 5 percent of the time you get 2xdamage extra.
Theoretically these are the same, but scoring crits more often is better for a couple reasons - crit effects, and less wasted damage on low HP targets.
Generally I agree, but there are benefits to high crit multiplier too; easier to penetrate high DR, larger chance of one hit ko's, and more effective CdG's.
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see a problem with the math. The axe has a 5% chance to threaten a critical. The sword has a 10% chance to threaten a critical. The multiplier is only 50% higher. I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.That "50%" comes from comparing the wrong numbers, btw. It's +100% damage vs. +200% damage. It's *1 additional damage vs. *2 additional damage.
In a statistically simple world, the battleaxe and longsword are exactly even in the long run. But that's assuming no crit riders and no overkill, no significant DR or need-20-to-hit opponents.
Ah, I stand corrected. Though with enemies that you need a crit to hit at all, the larger crit range would still provide more utility. Most DR can be overcome with the correct materials or magical enhancements. I still think the game leans towards swords being a better choice for front-line fighters.
|
Ah, I stand corrected. Though with enemies that you need a crit to hit at all, the larger crit range would still provide more utility. Most DR can be overcome with the correct materials or magical enhancements. I still think the game leans towards swords being a better choice for front-line fighters.
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see a problem with the math. The axe has a 5% chance to threaten a critical. The sword has a 10% chance to threaten a critical. The multiplier is only 50% higher. I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.That "50%" comes from comparing the wrong numbers, btw. It's +100% damage vs. +200% damage. It's *1 additional damage vs. *2 additional damage.
In a statistically simple world, the battleaxe and longsword are exactly even in the long run. But that's assuming no crit riders and no overkill, no significant DR or need-20-to-hit opponents.
In the case that you're merely looking to capitalize on a lot of critical feats, then I'd have to agree with you. Just dual-wield kukris and start applying a ton of debuffs to your target (assuming they're not immune).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I stand corrected. Though with enemies that you need a crit to hit at all, the larger crit range would still provide more utility. Most DR can be overcome with the correct materials or magical enhancements. I still think the game leans towards swords being a better choice for front-line fighters.
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see a problem with the math. The axe has a 5% chance to threaten a critical. The sword has a 10% chance to threaten a critical. The multiplier is only 50% higher. I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.That "50%" comes from comparing the wrong numbers, btw. It's +100% damage vs. +200% damage. It's *1 additional damage vs. *2 additional damage.
In a statistically simple world, the battleaxe and longsword are exactly even in the long run. But that's assuming no crit riders and no overkill, no significant DR or need-20-to-hit opponents.
If I'm understanding your statement here you are making a fundamental rules mistake.
Just because your weapon threatens a crit on 15-20 doesn't mean that 15-19 are automatic hits. Only a 20 on the die roll auto hits and threatens a critical.The expanded threat range on the swords simply means that IF the 15-19 would hit normally THEN you threaten a critical. If they don't hit you get nothing.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because dwarves.
I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.
In the end its just numbers. You can write axe on your sheet and give it the swords numbers and you have a nice compromise for people who want to use an axe but the swords stats. That's how I run my games anyway.
I really wish weapons were balanced, but they aren't entirely so. I enjoy having a 15-20 critical over a 20/x4.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because dwarves.
every time a dwarf PC is made wielding a longsword, he automatically loses his Scottish accent
Ah, I stand corrected. Though with enemies that you need a crit to hit at all, the larger crit range would still provide more utility. Most DR can be overcome with the correct materials or magical enhancements. I still think the game leans towards swords being a better choice for front-line fighters.
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see a problem with the math. The axe has a 5% chance to threaten a critical. The sword has a 10% chance to threaten a critical. The multiplier is only 50% higher. I'm kind of bored with every fighter in the games I play using swords, so I'd love a good reason to pick axes aside from flavor.That "50%" comes from comparing the wrong numbers, btw. It's +100% damage vs. +200% damage. It's *1 additional damage vs. *2 additional damage.
In a statistically simple world, the battleaxe and longsword are exactly even in the long run. But that's assuming no crit riders and no overkill, no significant DR or need-20-to-hit opponents.
If I'm understanding your statement here you are making a fundamental rules mistake.
Just because your weapon threatens a crit on 15-20 doesn't mean that 15-19 are automatic hits. Only a 20 on the die roll auto hits and threatens a critical.
The expanded threat range on the swords simply means that IF the 15-19 would hit normally THEN you threaten a critical. If they don't hit you get nothing.
I just learned something new today. Thanks :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish weapons were balanced, but they aren't entirely so. I enjoy having a 15-20 critical over a 20/x4.
15-20/x2 isn't equal to 20/x4.
20/x4 = 18-20/x215-20/x2 = 19-20/x4
I really wish weapons were balanced, but they aren't entirely so. I enjoy having a 15-20 critical over a 20/x4.15-20/x2 isn't equal to 20/x4.
20/x4 = 18-20/x2
15-20/x2 = 19-20/x4
Didn't say that was equal. Was sort of stating that they weren't.
15-20/x2 isn't equal to 20/x4.
20/x4 = 18-20/x2
15-20/x2 = 19-20/x4
I find it helps to think of it as a kind of roulette table. You get "chips" you can put on "numbers" and each chip gives you another damage die when that number comes up.
An ordinary weapon has one chip, which you put on 20 and so does double damage on a twenty.
A sword or an axe gets two chips. The sword puts one chip on 19, one on 20; the axe puts them both on twenty and hence gets two bonus damage dice for a total of 3x.
A 20/x4 weapon gets three chips, all on 20; an 18-20/x2 weapon is also a three-chip weapon.
A 15-20/x2 weapon would be a six chip weapon (chips on 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20), equivalent to a 20/x7 or a 19-20/x4 or an 18-20/x3.
Didn't say that was equal. Was sort of stating that they weren't.
I really wish weapons were balanced, but they aren't entirely so. I enjoy having a 15-20 critical over a 20/x4.15-20/x2 isn't equal to 20/x4.
20/x4 = 18-20/x2
15-20/x2 = 19-20/x4
I mean in terms of investment. Or are you saying there's a core weapon that gives 15-20/x2 without any feats? The most common way to get 15-20/x2 is keen/improved critical + kukri/scimitar/rapier. That doesn't stand in contrast to a standard pick, it stands in contrast to a keen/improved critical + pick/scythe, which has a critical of 19-20/x4.
A longsword crits on a 19 or 20 for x2 damage, so 10 percent of the time you get 1xdamage extra. A battleaxe crits on a 20 for x3 damage, so 5 percent of the time you get 2xdamage extra.
Theoretically these are the same, but scoring crits more often is better for a couple reasons - crit effects, and less wasted damage on low HP targets.
Though it requires exotic weapon proficiency, a falcata (crit 19-20,x3) is strictly better than a longsword.
Anyone basing their chracter progression on critical feats will want a weapon that crits on 18-20, then take Improved Critical or use a keen weapon.
When paired with someone with Butterfly's Sting, you may look for a weapon with a high crit multiplier rather than large crit range.
I have a rapier-wielding magus in my Kingmaker campaign that I run. He invariably lands a critical attack as soon as the baddie he is in melee with has 5 or less hit points.
A high-crit range weapon does nothing to mitigate overkill damage. They are just as succeptible to it as axes.
Numerical theory-craft has it's uses. Primarily as an encounter design tool. But I have learned that "in play" this sort of number crunching has little actual impact. In other words when that big, strong axe-wielding barbarian DOES crit, the extra damage makes up for any percieved disparity by number-crunchers. Often to their extreme surprise and detriment.
Because dwarves.
I mean in terms of investment. Or are you saying there's a core weapon that gives 15-20/x2 without any feats?
15-20 is the largest threat, and x4 is the highest multiplier. That's why I used them as an example, to state my own preference. Had nothing to do with mechanics. I thought the most important part of my statement was about how you could just write axe and give it the swords numbers if you wanted to see it in a campaign. That was the point of the post anyway. Then I expressed an opinion that I would like it to be balanced, but that it wasn't.
19-20x2 is almost identical to x3, with one exception that I can think of.
Standard case: Assume that both weapons confirm their criticals, since they both have an equal chance of confirming. On a 19-20x2 followed by a confirmation, you get 4 dice (2 at 19 and 2 at 20). On a 19 or 20x3 you also get 4 dice (1 at 19 and 3 at 20)
Exception: x3 is better if the target is harder to hit. If a 19 wouldn't hit, then it isn't a potential critical. Then it's a straight x2 vs x3 when you roll a nat 20.
ninja'd hardcore -wow
19-20x2 is almost identical to x3, with one exception that I can think of.
Standard case: Assume that both weapons confirm their criticals, since they both have an equal chance of confirming. On a 19-20x2 followed by a confirmation, you get 4 dice (2 at 19 and 2 at 20). On a 19 or 20x3 you also get 4 dice (1 at 19 and 3 at 20)
Exception: x3 is better if the target is harder to hit. If a 19 wouldn't hit, then it isn't a potential critical. Then it's a straight x2 vs x3 when you roll a nat 20.
Or when there's an additional effect that takes place on a critical. If you turn your opponent into a ballpoint pen when you confirm a critical hit, that's going to happen more often with a greater range. And you're not going to turn him into an entire pack of pens if you are wielding a greataxe.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, contrary to popular belief, some of us don’t think it’s all about the numbers. I pick out a concept for my character, and then I stick to it. Do I try and maximize my productivity within my concept? Hell yes, but I don’t compromise my idea to get a paltry extra few points of damage here or there.
Didn't say that was equal. Was sort of stating that they weren't.I mean in terms of investment. Or are you saying there's a core weapon that gives 15-20/x2 without any feats?
15-20 is the largest threat, and x4 is the highest multiplier. That's why I used them as an example, to state my own preference. Had nothing to do with mechanics. I thought the most important part of my statement was about how you could just write axe and give it the swords numbers if you wanted to see it in a campaign. That was the point of the post anyway. Then I expressed an opinion that I would like it to be balanced, but that it wasn't.
Does this suggest that we need a new feat?
It Goes Through Tanks. Upon a critical hit, you do twice as much additional damage as normal. If you normally do a x2 critical, you do a x3 critical. If you normally do a x3 critical, you do a x5 critical. If you normally do a x4 critical, you do a x7 critical. This feat does not stack with Improved Critical, Keen Weapon, or any other feat that improves the threat range of an attack.
---
The disadvantage, of course, is that this will lead to extreme damage swings; a high-strength fighter wielding a pick could easily hit for 150+ damage.
|
I find its more of a personal preference. Some people like to crit often and those people go with high crit weapons and builds to support that play style. Others like to hit hard and crit harder so they build for that. A great class for a hard hitter, if u have patience, is the Two-Handed Fighter archetype which benefits more from a high crit multiplier because of its level 19 and 20 abilities.
Also I find that the higher your crit multiplier the more memorable your crits are both because they are rarer and because when they do happen they can have a huge impact on the fight. I'll never forget the scythe fighter in a game I run one-shoting a bulette in the first round of combat.
Kinda took the wind out of that encounters sails.
- Torger
Having higher average damage doesn't make a weapon "better". It just means it has... higher average damage.
Of course, the same is true of the badguys.
Nothing says "I love you" like a raging barbarian ogre with an axe nearly chopping the group's fighter in half with a first-swing crit.
"do you have light fortification on your armor?"
"no, why?"
"oh.. no reason."
-S
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
no one remembers the pc who did solid average damage
but that x4 crit on the bbeg in that one session is legendary
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarves as has been said.
Vikings
Slash plays an axe not a sword.
Watch tomahawk fighting techniques.
You know the name of the adventure is the blood axe. Chances the principal mcguffin wont be a shield.
Because im a lumberjack (and im ok)
Having higher average damage doesn't make a weapon "better". It just means it has... higher average damage.
Do your fighters go around slapping enemies with the tea cozy their grandmother made for them on her deathbed? Requiring fewer hits to kill a guy makes a weapon better; and while characters can't tell exact weapon stats apart, they can damn well tell the difference between using a dagger and using a greataxe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However...
I like big axe and i cannot lie
Does damage with a twelve-side die
When a dwarf goes rage
With a times-three crit
And a great axe in your face
You get
CLEAVED!
Can we be best friends? Forever?