Community

Updated the OP with links.

Also, for completeness sake, I might as well introduce an idea that came to me about a week ago. I don't think it's really any good, but again I'll include it for the sake of completeness in case anyone wants to do the math on it.

What if we introduce the 2d4 step into the one-handed weapon die step progression? I introduced this idea earlier but it didn't get much discussion.

Also, what if we removed the 2d4 step from the two-handed weapon progression (as per Ravennus' suggestion) and only increased the value of two-handers by a single step instead of two?

This nerfs a lot of weapons but it might create a much tighter spread overall. Also it keeps +3 weapons from going over a 1d10 damage die (as I think this may be the real reason the greatsword got nerfed, nerfing a bunch of other weapons with it).

I know it may seem like two-handed weapons are totally worthless, but actually the longsword and the greatsword would remain completely the same, and I don't think anyone considers the greatsword to be "worthless" even if it is behind. All this does is nerf all the other 2-handed weapons to be on par-- I think they'd still be viable. But, I'm not sure.

Crashy75 wrote:

Hmmm, I thought it was generally agreed that 1 handed weapons are basically balanced(?)

The real problem, as I see it, is that one-handed and two-handed weapons are out of synch with each other. If you introduce the 2d4 step to one-handers, two-handers become balanced as a result.

I might as well do the full run-down, here.

Weapon Changes:
Battleaxe: 2d4
Flail: 2d4
Warhammer: 2d4
Greataxe: 1d10
Halberd: 2d4
Heavy flail: 1d12
Longspear: 2d4
Maul: 1d12
Bastard sword: 2d4

That introduces a lot more 2d4 weapons, for sure. That's clunky, but how does it look balance-wise?

EDIT: Just to get an idea of the clunkiness here, I want to take a count of the 2d4 weapons.

Number of 2d4 weapons, RAW: 5
(Greatclub, Scythe, Falchion, Glaive, Spiked chain)

Number of 2d4 weapons, houserule: 11
(Greatclub, Scythe, Falchion, Glaive, Spiked chain, Battleaxe, Flail, Warhammer, Halberd, Longspear, Bastard sword)

Total number of weapons: 31 (melee)

As for the second suggestion, what would change exactly? Take the greatsword. K, take out 2d4. Move up a step to +3/1d12. Remove one step. Move back to +3/1d10. Falchion's and Glaives would move back a bit I suppose. (1d8 damage). Wouldn't that move the longsword above the Falchion in the DPR department assuming one used (the longsword) 2 handed? Am I misunderstanding you or the system?

Yeah, it was a bad idea.

You keep that up, WEContact, and I'll begin to wonder if you're hitting on me. :P

Wyld_Mutation wrote:

Having om many weapons which could be abused by gauntlets of power or Vorpal might not be a good thing.

Sure, but for the point of the exercise I think those items should be excluded.

What I mean is, without considering those items, does introducing the 2d4 step to one-handed weapons balance out the weapons as a whole?

It seems to, at first glance.

squarecircle wrote:

The real problem, as I see it, is that one-handed and two-handed weapons are out of synch with each other. If you introduce the 2d4 step to one-handers, two-handers become balanced as a result.

I might as well do the full run-down, here.

Weapon Changes:
Battleaxe: 2d4
Flail: 2d4
Warhammer: 2d4
Greataxe: 1d10
Halberd: 2d4
Heavy flail: 1d12
Longspear: 2d4
Maul: 1d12
Bastard sword: 2d4

That introduces a lot more 2d4 weapons, for sure. That's clunky, but how does it look balance-wise?

EDIT: Just to get an idea of the clunkiness here, I want to take a count of the 2d4 weapons.

Number of 2d4 weapons, RAW: 5
(Greatclub, Scythe, Falchion, Glaive, Spiked chain)

Number of 2d4 weapons, houserule: 11
(Greatclub, Scythe, Falchion, Glaive, Spiked chain, Battleaxe, Flail, Warhammer, Halberd, Longspear, Bastard sword)

Total number of weapons: 31 (melee)
...

Ok. I have to say at first glance it looks like it unbalances 1 handed weapons a little. I know that I'll be reinventing the wheel here but I will go through my though process as I move along.

Let:

W=Average Weapon Damage of the least damaging weapon in the sample.

So, if you were comparing the RAW longsword with the RAW battleaxe, this would be 4.5 (avg. roll on a d8). It is important to use the lowest damage modifier to factor out the difference. This variable does not include other damage modifiers.

M= Damage Modifiers such as magic weapons, attribute modifiers etc.

I am specifically separating these two variables because separating the variables will show the inequalities. M will include Attribute Mods, Feats, Magic Weapons, Warlocks Curse, Hunters Quarry and probably some other bonuses I forgot to mention. It will probably not include (except under very specific circumstances) sneak attack and other weapon specific bonuses like hammer rhythm. Those will require another variable. The point is Mx=My. (Anybody know how to type subscripts?)

N=Number of hits over 20 attacks for the least accurate weapon in the sample.

In general I am assuming a +2 proficiency bonus. The Idea with W, M and N is to establish a base. Also, 20 attacks is a good number because one can safely assume one has scored a critical and the +1 to attack garnered an additional hit. The bell curve works both ways and the possibility that neither will happen is balanced with the possibility either can happen more than once. For the end result, I usually will assume a 50% hit ratio (N≈10), but once the formula is established different variables can be introduced.

D=Difference in average damage.

This will always compare to the highest average in the sample. So, if one is comparing a RAW Longsword to a RAW Battleaxe, D=1 (5.5-4.5). Note that I am not worrying about the max on the assumed crit (Avg x19 +max/20). I don't think that's a mistake but let me know if you think it is.

Lets take the longsword and the battleaxe RAW vs. SC (squarecircle) version.

Longsword= N(W+M) +(W+M)

We add W and M because of the extra attack garnered by the +1.
Note that this automatically shows us that high crit is inferior to a +1 bonus at least at the heroic tier. High Crit would only add W and each event has the same chance of occurring (5% or 1 in 20).

Battleaxe= N(W+A) +D(N).

We add D(N) for the extra damage the battleaxe is doing with each strike.

Now...

If the battleaxe ≈ the longsword,
then D(N) ≈ (W+M).

Once we remove all other (equal) factors, these are the ones remaining. If they are essentially equal, then the battleaxe should be equal to the longsword.

As an aside, this seems to show that power attack favors the longsword (or more accurate) over the battleaxe (higher damage die). N would be reduced by 2 (reducing the axe in comparison to the sword) and M would be increased by 2 (increasing the longsword in comparison). This could just mean that it hurts the longsword less than the axe. -2 to N hurts both overall, though from just looking here I'm not sure if the penalty overrides the benefit. I don't remember the numbers (I know Rav. did some a while back).

If Longsword=+3/1d8 and Battleaxe=+2/2d4 Then D(N) ≈ 5 and W+M≈ 7.5-12.5. 7.5-12.5>5. Therefore Longsword>Battleaxe.

Assuming a 50% hit ratio, N=10. So D(N)=5. I calculated M+W by using (what I think would be) the lowest average within the heroic tier and the highest average within the heroic tier. (1st level Str 16 vs. 10th level Str 22 +2 magic weapon). I don’t think a primary melee type will have a (primary melee attribute) lower than 16. On the other hand I used a 10th level dragonborn with a 22 str and a +2 weapon.

If Longsword=+3/1d8 and Battleaxe=+2/1d10 Then D(N) ≈ 10 and W+M≈ 7.5-12.5. 7.5-12.5≈ 10. Therefore Longsword ≈ Battleaxe.

I believe this will continue through paragon tier, but it is important to address the gauntlets of destruction. These do help the battleaxe, though it is not enough to bring them up to par. Please note that I am assuming both wielders are using the GoD.

Longsword= N(W+M) +(W+M)

The equation doesn’t change. The formula is specifically designed to compare each weapon. The numbers change at the paragon tier but not the formula itself.

Battleaxe= N(W+A) +D(N).

. I don’t have my book with me at the moment but a feat like deadly axe should be calculated (I believe it would add an additional 2(W). I would make the comparison but I not sure what to give the sword wielder (I forget the paragon sword feats).

If the battleaxe ≈ the longsword,
then D(N) ≈ (W+M).

Nothing changes here. If we add deadly axe without giving anything to the longsword, then it changes to D(N) +2(W) ≈ (W+M). Clearly the axe would be better.

If Longsword=+3/1d8 and Battleaxe=+2/2d4 Then D(N) ≈ 10 and W+M≈ 13.5-15.5. 13.5-15.5>10. Therefore Longsword>Battleaxe.

The battleaxe did gain some ground here. If the longsword wielder wasn’t using the GoD, then D would equal 1.5 and the axe would be slightly better but they could probably be considered about equal . Low= Lev 18(GoD is an 18th level item) str 21(16+5), +4 weapon. High= Level 20 Str 25 +4 weapon.

I’m not even going to do the Vorpal comparison. Clearly the axe would be superior.

So, your fix seems to help the 2 handed weapons (at least at a glance) but it plays havoc with the 1 handed weapons. After doing this I think I’m all for removing 2d4 and 2d6. Again, that’s easy for me to do as I have 14 sided die!!!!