|
5 years ago ::
Aug 22, 2008 - 5:04PM
#251
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2007
|
M[noparse][sub]y[/sub][/noparse]=M[sub]y[/sub]
Replace "sub" with "sup" for superscripts.
Just so you know.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 22, 2008 - 5:14PM
#252
|
|
|
M[noparse][sub]y[/sub][/noparse]=M[sub]y[/sub]
Replace "sub" with "sup" for superscripts.
Just so you know.
Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 22, 2008 - 5:16PM
#253
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2007
|
It's the least I can do.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 23, 2008 - 4:17PM
#254
|
|
|
While analyzing the Power Attack feat I realized that it is not possible to balance +1 die vs. +1 to attack.
Basically the problem is you have to compare a static bonus with an increasing bonus (it's been a while so I forget the correct terms).
With a +1 strike weapon you do + one strike average damage over 20 attacks (which increases) while you only do a fixed amount of extra damage with a +1 die weapon (number of hits in extra damage over 20 rounds.) As you level, you do extra damage with each hit but your bonus from +1 die stays fixed. +1 die damage weapons cannot keep up without something like high crit or hammer rhythm. (Unless I'm missing something BIG)
This may be why they added the 2d4 step (to even it out over the 30 levels). Others have worked out how well this worked. I'm going to have to review the numbers with this in mind.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 23, 2008 - 11:00PM
#255
|
Date Joined:
Dec 23, 2002
|
Remember that as you progress, especially through tiers, your attacks may increase in number of weapon dice used. This is how the bigger weapons scale as you level to try to keep pace with the more accurate weapons. If your powers don't have a high multiplier to weapon dice(such as the case of many of the multi-attack or multi-target powers), then the more accurate weapons will probably be better overall.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 24, 2008 - 10:27AM
#256
|
|
|
Remember that as you progress, especially through tiers, your attacks may increase in number of weapon dice used. This is how the bigger weapons scale as you level to try to keep pace with the more accurate weapons. If your powers don't have a high multiplier to weapon dice(such as the case of many of the multi-attack or multi-target powers), then the more accurate weapons will probably be better overall.
Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't considered multi die rolls for the most part (other than the epic at-wills where the accurate weapons still come out slightly ahead). An extra die would add (XDN, or number of extra die x difference in avg damage x number of hits) over a period of 20 attacks but subtract (W(X)+M average damage with extra die factored in) because of the missed attack.
So, if XDN≈(W(X))+M then I will concede that a +1 die can balance out with a +1 attack at least with encounters and dailies. Nothing would make me happier actually.
D is generally 1 (looking at GS vs GA) so this can be broken down into the following:
XN≈(W(X)) +M
Lets put some numbers in there! (Man this is exciting- and yes, I'm that much of a nerd)
N≈9-12. X≈1-7(?). W=5.5. M≈3-15(?)
N is pretty much static but, in general, the higher X is, the higher M will be as well. So, lets go low, med and high. I'll set X and M at 1,3 at low, 4,8 and 7,15 for now.
Low: 1(9-12)≈1(5.5)+3. 9-12≈8.5?
Nope, but we knew this already.
Med: 4(9-12)≈4(5.5)+8. 36-48≈30?
No again!?! Also, counter to my original thought, the gap is increasing. I know that if the axe had high crit, this gap would be wider (and is wider when considering dailies that do 1/2 damage on a miss). As you can see, and as been deduced by others, the easier it is to hit the baddies, the more favored high damage weapons are. I suppose I am reinventing the wheel. But this is good to see. I don't mind if +1 dam weapons do more damage- heck they're supposed to. High accuracy weapons already have the intrinsic bonus of hitting more (which could deliver status or could make a second attack more likely or could just come at an opportune time.)
High: 7(9-12)≈7(5.5)+15. 63-84≈53.5
Nope again.
Conclusion: As Zalabim pointed out. At-wills, multi-attacks, and status attacks benefit from accuracy. But if you want to do damage, go high die.
Oh, Zalabim, You deserve a 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2008 - 10:44PM
#257
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
I posted the following in another thread and thought it relevant to post here:
Through the discussion on the other thread, I've actually become convinced that the 2d4 step was placed in there for good reason. It's not just a holdover.
First, as Tejon's math showed us, without the 2d4 step, the spread is only slightly tighter than with it. And, when you remove the 2d4 step, the greatsword pulls ahead of the greataxe and other weapons (excluding a hammer rhythm maul) in DPR.
That, by itself, is okay, except that the greatsword is also a +3 weapon. So it's not just putting out a higher DPR, but it's better for landing dailies and encounters as well, making the greataxe a bad choice.
I know, the one-handed weapons don't have the 2d4 step. We looked at this as well. If you introduce the 2d4 step to one-handed weapons, it messes up their balance. In fact it just about causes havoc.
The problem isn't with +3 weapons being gimped, alone. Clearly that doesn't happen with one-handed weapons. It also isn't a problem with heavy blades; it's just that it so happens that the heavy blades are the +3 weapons. No, the problem is thus: Introduce a martial weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus and a damage die over 1d10, and then the combination of those two effects is too powerful. THAT is why the greatsword got gimped, and a bunch of other weapons in the process. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a heavy blade. And it's only indirectly a result of it being +3.
The +3 weapons need to be kept a smidgeon behind the +2 weapons (in DPR) or else there's no reason to use a +2 weapon (except for feats like hammer rhythm). That's the reason there's a 2d4 step in the two-handed weapon die progression. The reason it's not in the one-handed die progression is because those weapons are nicely balanced as-is, and the 2d4 step would make some weapons far too weak (except with the introduction of vorpal and GoD).
You're right, Ravennus, that removing the 2d4 step would make the weapons more internally balanced among themselves, but really, it's only slight. But that makes two-handed +3 weapons too powerful when you factor in dailies and encounters.
It's not heavy blades. It's not feats. It's not powers tied to weapon groups, or anything like that. It's a superior DPR combined with a greater chance to land your powers that was considered and the reason for introducing the 2d4 step to "gimp" +3 weapons so they don't overshadow the other weapons. It's unfortunate that it put them a little further back in the power curve than we'd like, and it's even more unfortunate that some weapons got caught in the crossfire, but this had to be done so that those weapons that were handicapped to keep them behind their +2 brothers weren't further handicapped by the other weapons (that also got handicapped in the process).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2008 - 12:46AM
#258
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
No, the problem is thus: Introduce a martial weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus and a damage die over 1d10, and then the combination of those two effects is too powerful. THAT is why the greatsword got gimped, and a bunch of other weapons in the process. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a heavy blade. And it's only indirectly a result of it being +3.
That's all well and good, but i still want to see more Superior weapons, including a Superior 2H Heavy Blade. In 3e, i never saw much point in Exotic weapons, you already had an insanely powerful Greatsword and the Falchion if you wanted the crazy crit-range. Sure, the Spiked Chain had the really good Reach and could be used for tripping, and Dwarven Waraxes and Bastard Swords were good 1H weapons, but AC (and shields) were pretty well lost causes in late levels anyways.
4e sets a president where Superior weapons are just stronger versions of Martial ones. They might have more fancy new abilities like Brutal to flesh out the Superior weapons, but until then i'm going to stick to a 2d8 War Maul and a 2d6 Fullblade.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2008 - 1:42AM
#259
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2002
|
In the end, I think the percieved weakness in the Two-handers comes from the polearms that are weaker than other polearms. When one is Reach 1d10 damage, and the others are reach 2d4 damage, there's a problem since they have no other advantage. If they were simply increased to 1d10, there wouldn't be this discussion.
Going from 1d8 to 2d4 would suck, but I don't believe there are any situations where that happens (going from scimitar to falchion does, but you also get +1 to hit out of it).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:34AM
#260
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2007
|
I'm fairly certain that this is a case of totally awesome thread necromancy.
Why'd this get raised?
|
|
|
