|
I have a pair of swashbuckler builds in mind, the details aren't too important to the main dilemma: one wields a falcata and one wields a rapier.
at level five the Falcata build will look like this
Falcata +14 (1d8 +13/17-20/x3)
and at the same level the Rapier build will look like this
Rapier +12 (1d6 +18/15-20/x2)
The Falcata will hit harder when it crits but the rapier will crit more often. I don't know which will net more damage.
Thanks Bunches
This is more of a rules question that a PFS question. But, your question isn't really answerable. How many times do you attack in a given scenario? 20? 50? Neither of those numbers are big enough for the "averages" to come into play. Some games one would outperform the other, and vice versa. Even over a character's lifetime, you barely get enough rolls to really reach the averages that you're asking for.
So, would you rather be a person who fights with a rapier, or a falcata? Go with that!
Viking Irishman's Guide to Weaponry
This guide used to be a lot more complex. However, the math basically boiled down to one conclusion. Broader crit range (15-20/x2) yielded higher average damage. At low-mid lvls the rapier will win out. However, at higher lvls, when you have a lot of static bonuses, the falcata will be better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another important consideration is that you are a swashbuckler. You're ability to regenerate panache is directly tied to reducing an opponent to 0 hp or less, or scoring a critical hit.
Because you have abilities that are tied to getting critical hits, it is likely better for you to go with a broader crit range weapon, despite the mathematical superiority of the falcata at higher levels with higher static damage bonuses. Also keep in mind that precise strike damage isn't multiplied on a critical, which is likely you're largest source of damage. So since it's not getting multiplied, a critical strike isn't nearly as strong for you in terms of the damage increase. It's mostly about scoring a crit for more panache so you can continue to use your nifty abilities.
|
|
Another important consideration is that you are a swashbuckler. You're ability to regenerate panache is directly tied to reducing an opponent to 0 hp or less, or scoring a critical hit.
Because you have abilities that are tied to getting critical hits, it is likely better for you to go with a broader crit range weapon, despite the mathematical superiority of the falcata at higher levels with higher static damage bonuses. Also keep in mind that precise strike damage isn't multiplied on a critical, which is likely you're largest source of damage. So since it's not getting multiplied, a critical strike isn't nearly as strong for you in terms of the damage increase. It's mostly about scoring a crit for more panache so you can continue to use your nifty abilities.
Good point. I was a little on the edge there for a moment but that pushed me over, Thanks mate looks like its a rapier build for me. This works out well because from what I can tell the rapier build also gets static damage much quicker too
But, your question isn't really answerable. How many times do you attack in a given scenario? 20? 50? Neither of those numbers are big enough for the "averages" to come into play.
This is errant nonsense. If you attack 20 times, you'll "expect" to see two more critical threats, since you'll "expect" to roll every number once. If you do fifty attacks, you'll expect to see five more threats.
If you want more formal numbers, use a binomial distribution and calculate the distributions. With only twenty attacks, I have less than a 40% chance of getting five or more critical threats with the falcata, and a nearly 80% chance of getting five or more critical threats with the rapier.
20 attacks is plenty big enough to notice a difference between the two weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, your question isn't really answerable. How many times do you attack in a given scenario? 20? 50? Neither of those numbers are big enough for the "averages" to come into play.This is errant nonsense. If you attack 20 times, you'll "expect" to see two more critical threats, since you'll "expect" to roll every number once.
That's not the way probability works, and my comment is neither errant nor nonsense. You can only "expect" such results over very large numbers of rolls. Go ahead and do it right now: roll 20 times and record the results. I'll wait.
You might get 5 crits in those 20 rolls. Or 3. Or 11. The dice does not care what number it rolled last time when it is rolling this time. It is only after hundreds of rolls that you will get close to the distribution needed to distinguish between those two weapons in a significant way. I will even go so far as to contend that the dice you choose to roll (and any swapping out of dice when one is rolling "cold") will affect your damage output more than the choice between these two weapons will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not the way probability works, and my comment is neither errant nor nonsense.But, your question isn't really answerable. How many times do you attack in a given scenario? 20? 50? Neither of those numbers are big enough for the "averages" to come into play.This is errant nonsense. If you attack 20 times, you'll "expect" to see two more critical threats, since you'll "expect" to roll every number once.
I'm afraid it is exactly how probability works. Look up "expected value" sometime. The expected value for the number of times you will roll a 5 in twenty rolls of an unbiased icosahedron is exactly 1.00.
If you think it's any other value, feel free to provide your calculations.
You might get 5 crits in those 20 rolls. Or 3. Or 11. The dice does not care what number it rolled last time when it is rolling this time. It is only after hundreds of rolls that you will get close to the distribution needed to distinguish between those two weapons in a significant way.
I provided calculations that show otherwise. Twenty tests is ample to distinguish.
Please don't make comments on technical subjects you don't understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick demonstration:
Here's the results of 20 rolls of a simulated d20 from https://www.wizards.com/d20modern/d20mdice/dice.htm.
16,19,13,13,10,7,20,5,17,3,2,11,6,16,20,19,15,3,2,8
That's 8 critical threats of 15+ (the rapier), an unusually high number
Here's another:
16,19,13,13,10,7,20,5,17,3,2,11,6,16,20,19,15,3,2,8,
That's 7 critical threats.
Here's another:
13,18,4,17,10,10,5,18,12,6,11,10,13,15,5,19,2,18,17,7
6 critical threats
And another
13,18,4,17,10,10,5,18,12,6,11,10,13,15,5,19,2,18,17,7
7 critical threats.
---
The chance of observing 6 or more critical threats with the falchion is a mere 20% (roughly, using the binomial theorem). More importantly, you'll notice that ALL of the samples include at least one extra 15 or 16 and hence at least one extra critical threat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you didn't provide calculations, you just stated some numbers. I agree that the numbers you calculate are correct, but the conclusion you are drawing from them is not, in the context of this discussion. (Amazingly enough, one can understand the issue and still not agree with your conclusion.)
This discussion falls under the law of large numbers, which states that as the number of rolls n approaches infinity, the results will behave as you say. I await your proof that 20 approaches infinity closely enough that 20 dice rolls will indeed roll one of each number every time.
My contention is that either of the OPs weapon choices will function equally well damage-wise over the course of a scenario (and even over the course of many scenarios). There may be statistical reason to favour one over the other, but in PFS n does not approach infinity closely enough for those numbers too hold up.
Another important consideration is that you are a swashbuckler. You're ability to regenerate panache is directly tied to reducing an opponent to 0 hp or less, or scoring a critical hit.
Going to second this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My contention is that either of the OPs weapon choices will function equally well damage-wise over the course of a scenario (and even over the course of many scenarios).
If something is better on average, it is, on average, better. If I replace a 19-20 threat range with a 17-20 threat range I will on average get twice as many crits.
That doesn't guarantee I will: I might get exactly the same number of crits I would have anyway - if I never roll a 17 or 18, for example.
But equally, I might get three times as many crits. I could be rolling 17s and 18s all the time. On average, I will get twice as many, whether I attack a million times or three times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- 4 crits for rapier =x8, 3 for falcata =x9
- 9 crits for rapier =x18, 4 for falcata =x12
- 2 crits for rapier =x4, 1 for falcata =x3
- 7 crits for rapier =x14, 5 for falcata =x15
- 4 crits for rapier =x8, 1 for falcata 1=x3
- 10(!) crits for rapier =x20, 8(!) for falcata =x24
- 6 crits for rapier =x12, 5 for falcata =x15
- 8 crits for rapier =x16, 5 for falcata (=x15)
Total: 50 crits out of 160 rolls for rapier = 100x mutlipler; 32 crits with falcata = 96x multipler. Difference on the dice rolls of about 18 points of damage over 160 attacks.
Yep, more crits for the rapier in 6 of 8 scenarios. Sometimes lots more; sometimes only 1 more. But in 4 times of 8, the falcata's x3 crit rating made the (dice-based) crit damage higher than the rapier.
(By far the main factor in actual damage in the OP's two builds is the better static damage bonus with the rapier, so it does 50% more damage every time - that is the dominating effect on damage.)
As a swashbuckler, crits help regain panache, but the crit benefit the two weapons is not that important to damage. Rather, the larger static bonus is the key. So what I said still stands - the crit range of the weapons shouldn't determine what weapon you choose to use because it won't influence the damage that much.
Especially in PFS where you mainly play at lower to mid tier and stop at level 12 a 15-20 weapon is better for those purposes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking a poll of 10 random CR 5 monsters I found them to have an average AC of 18. Using your numbers I'll run a DPR on them using the normal h(d+s)+tchd formula
build 1: Falcata +14 (1d8+13/17-20/x3)
.8(17.5+0) + .2*2*.8*17.5
14+5.6= 19.6
build 2: Rapier +12 (1d6+18/15-20/x2)
.7(21.5+0) + .3*1*.7*21.5
15.05+4.515= 19.565
Your Falcata is marginally better dealing .045 damage per round more than the rapier. Also translated as, play what you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For anyone except a Swashbuckler, the answer is play what you want, the difference is close enough. For a swashbuckler, you want the crits for panache regeneration, and you have better uses for feats than EWP. Go with the rapier.
This is only true if you confirm the crit. Since he has a lower chance to hit with the rapier. It still means play what you want.
|
For anyone except a Swashbuckler, the answer is play what you want, the difference is close enough. For a swashbuckler, you want the crits for panache regeneration, and you have better uses for feats than EWP. Go with the rapier.This is only true if you confirm the crit. Since he has a lower chance to hit with the rapier. It still means play what you want.
Frankly - I have no idea why that would actually be true. It seems like they should have the same accuracy - the builds being the same except the falcatta needing to burn an extra feat for proficiency, and the rapier build taking Fencing Grace instead of Slashing Grace.
Normally in 15-20 vs 17-20x3 - the 17-20x3 does somewhat more damage, though much will be overkill. In addition, if you plan to ever go for the crit feats stick with 15-20.
For a Swash - always stick with 15-20 for panache - and you don't get nearly as much from the extra damage due to precision.
|
I have a pair of swashbuckler builds in mind, the details aren't too important to the main dilemma: one wields a falcata and one wields a rapier.
at level five the Falcata build will look like this
Falcata +14 (1d8 +13/17-20/x3)and at the same level the Rapier build will look like this
Rapier +12 (1d6 +18/15-20/x2)The Falcata will hit harder when it crits but the rapier will crit more often. I don't know which will net more damage.
Thanks Bunches
I just posted a calculator that can compare your examples side by side over the full range of defender's AC.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sq2d?Another-DPA-calculator
Don't listen to them. Earth breaker. 20/x3 is what you want.
Wait, this is for a class that gets good things on verified crits? Awww.
Well, rapiers are stylish. Falcatas aren't going to regenerate that panache as fast but are cool, especially if you have a kukri with them so you have the whole similar weapon thing going.
Aside from that, it's better to just pick whatever's coolest. Like an earth breaker.
On average, the falcata will do more straight-up damage. However, if you have effects that ride on the critical hit (i.e., Bleeding Critical), then the rapier (or scimitar) will be more useful.
That's pretty much it.
Both will be highly effective. You'll critical more often with the rapier, and your crits will do more damage, making it more likely you'll put a foe down in one strike, with a falcata. With the falcata you'll want to focus on ways to boost static damage, with things like power attack, weapon specialization and so forth. I might even consider a few levels in Rondolero Duelist.
Bottom line is, falcata are badass and you should use one if you want. You will not be handicapping yourself. Rapier may be slightly more damage on average, but it's not a huge difference, and if you like falcatas better then use one. If you like rapiers better then use one of those.
Yeah, seriously, what's up with that? The to-hit should be exactly the same.
The Falcata/Rapier to Hit should be exactly the same if not the Rapier higher due to not needing to take EWP.
Honestly this is an easy choice. Pick the Rapier because you need Panache.
You want to crit more often, specifically for Panache, as mentioned above.
Also there's things like Stunning Critical etc.
And also the factor of over-kill - excess HP damage isn't useful to you.
When X regular hits + Y rapier crits kill the target, Falcata having bigger crits doesn't matter.
On the contrary, rapier getting smaller crits more often will be able to drop targets more often.
Normally, rapiers can't benefit from 2H dmg boost, but falcata's can, which helps falcata reliable dmg)
(i.e. you might not even NEED a crit in the first place with base falcata damage + 2H dmg)
But in your case you need to 1H because of class abilities.
There is also the factor to consider of the N% of enemies immune to Crits, but it doesn't help Falcata in this case.
I dont' know why the OP's build has lower attack bonus on Rapier, that's not inherent to the weapon?
(if anything, falcata is taking an extra feat for XWP)
Re: people saying there is no difference in amount of Crits because of this difference is BS without backing it up.
OP said this is at level 5, so looking at APL+3 opponent = CR 8, standard AC is 21.
Falcata +14 hits on 7: hits 70%, crits 20%, crithit+confirm 14%
Rapier +12 hits on a 9: hits 60%, crits 30$, crithit+confirm 18%.
And as mentioned, the attack bonus doesn't have any clear reason to exist anyways, but EVEN WITH THE PENALTY, Rapier Crits more.
I have a pair of swashbuckler builds in mind, the details aren't too important to the main dilemma: one wields a falcata and one wields a rapier.
at level five the Falcata build will look like this
Falcata +14 (1d8 +13/17-20/x3)and at the same level the Rapier build will look like this
Rapier +12 (1d6 +18/15-20/x2)The Falcata will hit harder when it crits but the rapier will crit more often. I don't know which will net more damage.
Thanks Bunches
I just posted a calculator that can compare your examples side by side over the full range of defender's AC.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sq2d?Another-DPA-calculator
I have one, too, but you bring up the critical question:
What is the to hit on each weapon?
What is the average AC of the target?
Mine will pull average AC from the monster tables based on your character level or BAB, but without at least a BAB, you can't answer the question.
Then you get into the issue of "how much of the damage is actually useful?" I see builds touting 100+ points of damage at level 7, but if the average hit points of the target at that level is less than 80, you're "wasting" 20 points of damage on every hit. A more efficient build would be one that does just slightly more damage than it takes to drop the foe or allows you spread the damage around to multiple foes if you drop the first one. (Can you tell I've working in manufacturing companies that use "just enough" inventory techniques?) :-)
|
|
I have a pair of swashbuckler builds in mind, the details aren't too important to the main dilemma: one wields a falcata and one wields a rapier.
at level five the Falcata build will look like this
Falcata +14 (1d8 +13/17-20/x3)and at the same level the Rapier build will look like this
Rapier +12 (1d6 +18/15-20/x2)The Falcata will hit harder when it crits but the rapier will crit more often. I don't know which will net more damage.
Thanks Bunches
I just posted a calculator that can compare your examples side by side over the full range of defender's AC.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sq2d?Another-DPA-calculator
I have one, too, but you bring up the critical question:
What is the to hit on each weapon?
What is the average AC of the target?Mine will pull average AC from the monster tables based on your character level or BAB, but without at least a BAB, you can't answer the question.
Then you get into the issue of "how much of the damage is actually useful?" I see builds touting 100+ points of damage at level 7, but if the average hit points of the target at that level is less than 80, you're "wasting" 20 points of damage on every hit. A more efficient build would be one that does just slightly more damage than it takes to drop the foe or allows you spread the damage around to multiple foes if you drop the first one. (Can you tell I've working in manufacturing companies that use "just enough" inventory techniques?) :-)
Good points.
Some other reasons for a Swashbuckler to choose a rapier over a falcata:
- Rapiers qualify for the Dueling special ability and Falcatas don't.
- Fencing Grace allows you to hold something in your other hand if you want. Slashing Grace now prevents that.
- Fencing Grace gives you a +2 CMD bonus vs. disarm (on top of that granted by the Dueling special ability). Slashing Grace doesn't.
- The Inspired Blade archetype.