High I was wondering how much better would it be if someone, like my self, (hypothetically) designed a scythe that had a 19-20x3 critical range/effect, vs. the standard 20x4 critical range/effect.
Is it about the same or is it drastically different/more powerful.
Does a scythe being a two handed weapon make that much of a difference?
Thanks,
-Hexen
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I like to think of is is with a roulette table analogy. Every combination of number plus single damage multipler is a "chip" you can put on a table square. The better weapons take more chips.
E.g. a 20/x2 weapon crits for double damage (one chip) on one number, for a total of 1x1 chips.
A 20/x3 has two chips (double, then triple damage) on a single number. A 20/x4 number has three chips.
A 19-20/x2 has one chip each on two squares. A 19-20/x3 would have two chips each on two squares, making it a four-chip weapon, better than a 20/x4 which is a three chip weapon.
Also, a higher crit range is easier to improve (e.g. via Keen) than improving the crit multiplier. It's also situationally more useful because it's less likely to overkill a target.
So I'd say that your redesigned scythe is a substantial improvement.
There is only one weapon in Pathfinder that has both an increased threat range (19-20) and increased crit multiplier (x3), and that's the falcata. For dealing damage (which is the primary purpose of weapons) it is the best threat profile in the game. It is also a one-handed exotic weapon with no other special abilities whatsoever, no maneuvers, no finesse, no two-handed damage, no multiple damage types, you have to take exotic weapon proficiency just to get the 19-20/x3 critical.
So, if you want your new weapon to be fairly balanced with existing choices, you shouldn't just improve the threat range to the best in the game while leaving all of its other advantages: two-handed, martial, trip, and 2d4 damage.
Before adding keen or improved critical the difference is barely noticeable, but when you add them the DPR can differ by at least 3 at level 10.
I use a fighter with 22 strength, weapon focus, weapon spec, power attack, and weapon training with a bonus of +3.
If I had put more effort into it the difference in DPR would increase more. The 19-20 x 3 is good enough for a feat.
@ Blueluck
Being a two-handed weapon is not any sort of advantage. A one-handed weapon can be wielded in two hands for 1.5x str damage and 3-for-1 on power attack.
You're right, the advantage of "two-handed" in this case is really just the higher damage dice.
|
Furious Focus requires wielding a weapon two-handed as well.
***
mathematically, assume your weapon damage per hit is 1, and you can hit on an 11 on a d20. Now, 1 in 20 times you can threaten a crit, which you confirm half the time, for 4x damage, so on average, when you roll a 20, you score two damage.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2 = 11/20
Your average damage per swing is .55, since you miss half the time.
by the same math, if your critical range is 19-20(x3) you get
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.5,1.5 = 11/20
so the average damage per swing is still .55
So on the surface they're functionally equivalent.
With Improved Crit or Keen, you get
20 / x4 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2 = 12/20 = .6
19-20/ x3 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.5,1.5,1.5,1.5 = 12/20 = .6
so no difference, although most people will tell you that they prefer the ability to crit more often than bigger crits.
If you want numbers, the new weapon will deal approx. 4.3% more damage (assuming all other factors are the same).
Throw in Imp. Crit or Keen, and that increases to a 7.7% increase in damage.
Unless you're dishing out 50 damage per hit, Weapon Spec. does more damage.
Furious Focus requires wielding a weapon two-handed as well.
***
mathematically, assume your weapon damage per hit is 1, and you can hit on an 11 on a d20. Now, 1 in 20 times you can threaten a crit, which you confirm half the time, for 4x damage, so on average, when you roll a 20, you score two damage.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2 = 11/20
Your average damage per swing is .55, since you miss half the time.
by the same math, if your critical range is 19-20(x3) you get
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.5,1.5 = 11/20
so the average damage per swing is still .55
So on the surface they're functionally equivalent.With Improved Crit or Keen, you get
20 / x4 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2 = 12/20 = .6
19-20/ x3 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.5,1.5,1.5,1.5 = 12/20 = .6so no difference, although most people will tell you that they prefer the ability to crit more often than bigger crits.
I dont know what all of these numbers are, but I know that if you use the DPR formula the numbers are not the same.
PS: I did not use furious focus for my earlier numbers, but I dont think it would have mattered. If anything the number that was ahead would have stayed ahead.
Furious Focus requires wielding a weapon two-handed as well.
***
mathematically, assume your weapon damage per hit is 1, and you can hit on an 11 on a d20. Now, 1 in 20 times you can threaten a crit, which you confirm half the time, for 4x damage, so on average, when you roll a 20, you score two damage.
Two and a half.
Half the time it's a 4x crit, half the time it's a 1x normal hit. Averaged, that's 2.5x.
Similarly, a 3x crit averages to 2x damage.
Rerun your numbers and you'll see the difference.
|
@ Blueluck
Being a two-handed weapon is not any sort of advantage. A one-handed weapon can be wielded in two hands for 1.5x str damage and 3-for-1 on power attack.
I'm not sure that there's absolutely no advantage for a two-handed weapon.
There are some feats that state that they can only be applied to two-handed weapons. (Pushing Assault, Shield of Swings)
There's also several feats and abilities that don't work with two-handed weapons (Magi and Duelists come to mind) so I'd call it a wash.
|
The way I like to think of is is with a roulette table analogy. Every combination of number plus single damage multipler is a "chip" you can put on a table square. The better weapons take more chips.
E.g. a 20/x2 weapon crits for double damage (one chip) on one number, for a total of 1x1 chips.
A 20/x3 has two chips (double, then triple damage) on a single number. A 20/x4 number has three chips.
A 19-20/x2 has one chip each on two squares. A 19-20/x3 would have two chips each on two squares, making it a four-chip weapon, better than a 20/x4 which is a three chip weapon.
Also, a higher crit range is easier to improve (e.g. via Keen) than improving the crit multiplier. It's also situationally more useful because it's less likely to overkill a target.
So I'd say that your redesigned scythe is a substantial improvement.
What an eloquent way to describe the mathematics of crits.
Thank you, I will use your method in the future.
It's really all about improvability imo. The math make them equal, but you can improve crit range, while you can't improve crit modifier. So x4 wins out.
|
There's also several feats and abilities that don't work with two-handed weapons (Magi and Duelists come to mind) so I'd call it a wash.
If you use my alchemagus build you can use 2h weapons, though you must take 2 dips in alchemist. I'd say that between not needing a feat to use a scythe (for a lot of things) and it being a trip weapon, the weapon is better. The crit itself is about the same in my book, though if you spend an exotic weapon proficiency feat, why not just get a better weapon like dwarven waraxe or elven curve blade?
Lincoln - that's a very nice idea. I do think it would still be a bit too strong all around, but that would probably be balanced out if you kept it at "20 only" for x3, even with improved critical. (x2 at 17-19, x3 at 20).
Capt. S.H. Ineptus: Although it's a little mechanically awkward, you could devise a weapon that does a double-damage crit on a 19, and a triple-damage crit on a 20; that's the same, game-impact-wise, as a weapon with a 20/x4 crit. Flat-out 19/x3 is overpowered (identical in terms of game impact to a 20/x5), as Orfamay Quest very vividly illustrated.
I was merely presenting a concept for theory craft to see what the effects were.
If I wanted to talk deign I would have gone to a different thread.
Furious Focus requires wielding a weapon two-handed as well.
***
mathematically, assume your weapon damage per hit is 1, and you can hit on an 11 on a d20. Now, 1 in 20 times you can threaten a crit, which you confirm half the time, for 4x damage, so on average, when you roll a 20, you score two damage.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2 = 11/20
Your average damage per swing is .55, since you miss half the time.
by the same math, if your critical range is 19-20(x3) you get
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.5,1.5 = 11/20
so the average damage per swing is still .55
So on the surface they're functionally equivalent.With Improved Crit or Keen, you get
20 / x4 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2 = 12/20 = .6
19-20/ x3 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.5,1.5,1.5,1.5 = 12/20 = .6so no difference, although most people will tell you that they prefer the ability to crit more often than bigger crits.
I dont know what all of these numbers are, but I know that if you use the DPR formula the numbers are not the same.
PS: I did not use furious focus for my earlier numbers, but I dont think it would have mattered. If anything the number that was ahead would have stayed ahead.
As far as I can tell the error is that he is counting an unconfirmed crit as a miss instead of as a regular hit. Going by his numbers the x4 should be doing a 2.5 damage average on a 20 for a result of 0.575 and the 19-20x3 should be doing 2 damage average on 19-20 for 0.6. With keen that goes up to 0.675 for the x4 and 0.7 for the 19-20x3.
|
|
Furious Focus requires wielding a weapon two-handed as well.
***
mathematically, assume your weapon damage per hit is 1, and you can hit on an 11 on a d20. Now, 1 in 20 times you can threaten a crit, which you confirm half the time, for 4x damage, so on average, when you roll a 20, you score two damage.Two and a half.
Half the time it's a 4x crit, half the time it's a 1x normal hit. Averaged, that's 2.5x.
Similarly, a 3x crit averages to 2x damage.
Rerun your numbers and you'll see the difference.
ahhh...yep, you're right.
|
|
Furious Focus requires wielding a weapon two-handed as well.
***
mathematically, assume your weapon damage per hit is 1, and you can hit on an 11 on a d20. Now, 1 in 20 times you can threaten a crit, which you confirm half the time, for 4x damage, so on average, when you roll a 20, you score two damage.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2.5 = 11.5/20
Your average damage per swing is .575, since you miss half the time.
by the same math, if your critical range is 19-20(x3) you get
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2 = 12/20
so the average damage per swing is still .6
so the 19-20/x3 is better by .025 damage, or 4.3% better than the 20/x4With Improved Crit or Keen, you get
19-20/ x4 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2.5,2.5 = 13/20 = .65
17-20/ x3 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2 = 14/20 = .7
so with a doubler on the crit range, the difference is .05 larger, or 7.7%so the difference is mathematically noticable
I don't see the problem with a 19-20/x3 weapon.
First, while it does have the same average damage to a 20/x5 weapon, I would hardly call it identical. In game terms, a 19-20/x3 weapon, for example, is not as likely to drop a low level character in one lucky hit as a 20/x5 weapon, nor is it as exploitable by a Crit Fisher as a 17-20/x2 weapon.
Second, increasing the number of "crit chips" (to borrow Orfamay's analogy) has diminishing returns. That is, a 4 chip weapon has less of an advantage over a 3 chip weapon than a 3 chip weapon has over a 2 chip weapon. Assuming you're paying the same cost (feat, lower damage die, etc.) for the extra chip, you'll be getting less bang for your buck.
Don't forget the crit line of feats that allow you to add effects to your crits. Having a larger crit threat range is beneficial when used in conjunction with those feats (bleeding critical, blinding critical, etc.).
My personal preference is to try to build to as wide a threat range as I can get.
|
It's really all about improvability imo. The math make them equal, but you can improve crit range, while you can't improve crit modifier.
This is not strictly speaking true.
A few classes can increase critical modifiers. Some as early as 4th level.
A 20th level Kensai can increase the critical multiplier by +2. (That would be 15-20/x4 with a scimitar or 17-20/x5 with a falcata. A 12.5% advantage to the scimitar.)
Scimitar > Falcata in the hands of a true master 8P
I don't see the problem with a 19-20/x3 weapon.
i don't think I said it was a problem. If you like a high-powered game, then this is a handy little mod that will increase the effectiveness of the fighter without requiring radical rules redesign. The question I thought I was answering was simply "are they the same?"
First, while it does have the same average damage to a 20/x5 weapon, I would hardly call it identical. In game terms, a 19-20/x3 weapon, for example, is not as likely to drop a low level character in one lucky hit as a 20/x5 weapon, nor is it as exploitable by a Crit Fisher as a 17-20/x2 weapon.
No. But alternatively, you're less likely to overkill a (soft) target with a 19-20/x3 weapon than with a 20/x5 weapon, because the damage is less "spikey." If you're doing d8+9 damage against a horde of 20hp monsters, you'd rather crit twice as often than for three times as much damage, because any crit is an instant kill, but any normal hit is not a kill at all. In fact, I'd much rather have the 17-20/x2 weapon in this instance.
But the opposite is true against something with DR 20. I'd rather hit really hard with my criticals in that case, since a x2 critical will barely scratch the paint on that thing but a x5 critical will take out a quarter-panel.
Second, increasing the number of "crit chips" (to borrow Orfamay's analogy) has diminishing returns. That is, a 4 chip weapon has less of an advantage over a 3 chip weapon than a 3 chip weapon has over a 2 chip weapon. Assuming you're paying the same cost (feat, lower damage die, etc.) for the extra chip, you'll be getting less bang for your buck.
Possibly. It also depends of course on how the chips are distributed. Personally, i prefer "more chips," and then "more numbers covered"; I greatly prefer the Keen Falcata to the Vorpal Axe for that reason. But at this point we're not talking about a raw numbers question and instead talking about a combination of weapon, character build, and tactics, which are not amenable to simple math.
There is only one weapon in Pathfinder that has both an increased threat range (19-20) and increased crit multiplier (x3), and that's the falcata. For dealing damage (which is the primary purpose of weapons) it is the best threat profile in the game. It is also a one-handed exotic weapon with no other special abilities whatsoever, no maneuvers, no finesse, no two-handed damage, no multiple damage types, you have to take exotic weapon proficiency just to get the 19-20/x3 critical.
So, if you want your new weapon to be fairly balanced with existing choices, you shouldn't just improve the threat range to the best in the game while leaving all of its other advantages: two-handed, martial, trip, and 2d4 damage.
Ah, hence the Tengu's greatest true power.
I don't see the problem with a 19-20/x3 weapon.i don't think I said it was a problem. If you like a high-powered game, then this is a handy little mod that will increase the effectiveness of the fighter without requiring radical rules redesign. The question I thought I was answering was simply "are they the same?"
I don't think it really high powered, either. Is it worth a feat? Absolutely, but you have to be doing some pretty hefty damage for it to outclass other combat feats. Even if you're using Imp. Crit, which isn't available until levels when damage starts to become a less effective way to kill enemies, it's not that much better.
I think the OP's suggested weapon, a scythe with a crit range of 19-20/x3, would be more or less balanced as an Exotic Weapon in most games.
Possibly. It also depends of course on how the chips are distributed. Personally, i prefer "more chips," and then "more numbers covered"; I greatly prefer the Keen Falcata to the Vorpal Axe for that reason. But at this point we're not talking about a raw numbers question and instead talking about a combination of weapon, character build, and tactics, which are not amenable to simple math.
Second, increasing the number of "crit chips" (to borrow Orfamay's analogy) has diminishing returns. That is, a 4 chip weapon has less of an advantage over a 3 chip weapon than a 3 chip weapon has over a 2 chip weapon. Assuming you're paying the same cost (feat, lower damage die, etc.) for the extra chip, you'll be getting less bang for your buck.
I was just referring to increase in average damage, which does not depend on how the chips are arranged. Other factors are harder to quantify.
I would say that while I wouldn't have a problem with 19-20/x3, a rather balanced 4 chip weapon, I would have a problem with a 20/x5 or a 17-20/x2, which would be easier to exploit given clearly defined strengths.
Sweet Jesus, you guys are putting more math into this thing than there was in TreantMonk's Wizard Guide.
I don't think it really high powered, either. Is it worth a feat? Absolutely, but you have to be doing some pretty hefty damage for it to outclass other combat feats. Even if you're using Imp. Crit, which isn't available until levels when damage starts to become a less effective way to kill enemies, it's not that much better.I don't see the problem with a 19-20/x3 weapon.i don't think I said it was a problem. If you like a high-powered game, then this is a handy little mod that will increase the effectiveness of the fighter without requiring radical rules redesign. The question I thought I was answering was simply "are they the same?"
Have to agree on that point. Really, what makes the Falcata notable is that it's the only weapon in the game that's generally agreed to be worth taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency for from a pure mechanics point of view. Heck, quite a few of the exotic weapons are flat-out worse mechanically than similar simple and martial weapons.