Should two-handed weapons be weakened in Conan 2nd?

Discuss Mongoose RPGs here, such as the OGL rulebooks, Jeremiah, Armageddon 2089 and Macho Women with Guns

Should the damage of two-handed weapons be lower in Conan 2nd ed?

Yes, two-handers should be made weaker!
15
29%
No, leave it as it is!
36
69%
No, they need to do MORE damage!
1
2%
 
Total votes: 52
Daz
Mongoose
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: South Korea
Contact:

Postby Daz » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:28 pm

two-handed weapons dominated battlefields in real life, get used to it.
Um, what?!?!

In battle-fields (dueling was different) shield/spear probably beats most anything. With only a handful exceptions units composed of primarily two-handed weapons were unheard of in historical battles.
User avatar
Sutek
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Location: Houston Texas

Postby Sutek » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:02 pm

The most effective historical sword and armor fighting was done with large shield and what Conan would call an arming sword.
Trodax wrote:Reducing the damage of two-handed weapons does not mean that they have to be reduced to the levels of one-handers (no one has suggested this, just like sbarrie said). In the first post of this thread I suggested that the greatsword/bardiche damage be dropped from 2d10 to 2d8 - that would still have them dealing way more damage than your typical one-hander.
So a max of 16 points is better than a max of 20? 4 point max damage difference, or a 2 point average damage difference?

I guess I just dont'see where 2-4 points makes a difference when the average character hit die is generating that or more per level (die + CON) and the maximums are still either 4 or 5 times that kind of per level ammount. (This is assuming a d6=3, d8=4 and d10=5 for stright hit dice and that most CON bonuses are going ot be above zero).

I also can't buy the assertion that the difference between two-handed weapon damage and one-handed weapon damage is "too great" because I think it has been established that the damage ratings reflect the tactics of the weapon. Finesse attacks and Sneak Attacks are betterat higer levels than two-handed bashing, even in spite of getting to swing huge battle axes every round.

I think there are too many factors to make a difinite argument for reducing the damage, most of which have to do with what feats are involved and on random chance.
AE Errata Thread
"Occam's razor makes the cutting clean..."
User avatar
sbarrie
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby sbarrie » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:14 pm

Netherek wrote:Not directly, but by advocating that PA should be the same regardless of weapon you are saying that 2 broads are better than a great. If you want the math, look at earlier posts.
Okay, let's do the math with armour. I'll use my rules for Power Attack, so we can see how badly two handed weapons are nerfed and dual wield overpowered. I'm ignoring critical hits here.

Please check my math. I didn't find any problems when I checked it, and that makes me suspicious. :)

Case One
First lets consider a 10 Str character with a +5 Base Attack Bonus (BAB) and the Power Attack feat. That's a melee attack bonus of +5. He's confronted with an opponent wearing a mail hauberk, a steel cap and a large shield. Lets say DR 7 and Defense 14. That's medium armour, not heavy yet.

Should this character fight with two broadswords, or one greatsword?

No Power Attack
Without using power attack the broadsword deals 1d10 damage and has an Armour Piercing of 3. The average damage, with primary hand or off hand, is 1.3 due to the minimum of 1 (damage possibilities 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,3).
The greatsword does 2d10 with an AP of 4. It doesn't penetrate the armour either, so its average damage after armour is 4.76.

The greatsword needs a 9 (60%) to hit defence 14, a single broadsword would also need a 9 (60%), but dual wielded broadswords need a 13 to hit (40%).

So the average damage per round is:
Single broadsword 0.78
Two broadswords 1.04 combined (not each!)
Greatsword 2.856

Obviously, that medium armour is doing its job well. Lets swing a bit harder, and see what happens.

Power Attack 3
The broadsword now deals 1d10+3 damage with AP3. The average damage, with primary hand or off hand, is 2.5 (damage possibilities 1,1,1,1,1,2,3,4,5,6). The greatsword does 2d10+3 AP4 under my "nerfed" rules, with an average of 7.1 per successful hit.

The greatsword and single broadsword now need a 12 (45%) to connect, and the dual wield needs at 16 (25%) with each hand. That gives an average per round of
Single broadsword 1.125
Two broadswords 1.25 combined
Greatsword 3.195

That's a bit better.

Power Attack 5
The broadsword now deals 1d10+5 AP3, with an average of 3.8 per hit. The greatsword does 2d10+5 AP4, with and average of 9.35 per hit.

The greatsword and single broadsword now need a 14 (35%) to connect, and the dual wield needs a 18 (15%) with each hand. That gives an average per round of
Single broadsword 1.33
Two broadswords 1.14 combined
Greatsword 3.2725

The inaccuaracy of using two broadswords has actually decreased our character's average damage! That's a good result - using two broadswords makes you look like a tool.

Note that even with a nerfed Power Attack, the two handed weapon is still easily the better choice for dealing with medium armour. In either case, he needs to score a critical hit to cause massive damage. Note that the greatsword and the single broadsword only need an attack action, the dual wield needs a full attack action.

But this guy's a bit of a wimp. Surely the extra damage and accuracy of a character with a more Howardian strength will help the dual wield character.

Case Two
Now lets consider a 18 Str character with a +5 BAB and the Power Attack feat. That's a melee attack bonus of +9. He's also confronted with an opponent wearing a mail hauberk, a steel cap and a large shield. That's DR 7 and Defense 14. That's still medium armour.

Should this character fight with two broadswords, or one greatsword?

No Power Attack
Without using power attack the broadsword deals 1d10+4 damage and has an Armour Piercing of 7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+2 with an Armour Piercing of 5 with his off hand. The primary weapon pierces the armour, the off hand does not. That gives an average of 6.5 per hit with the primary weapon, and an average of 2 points of damage for a hit with the off hand broadsword.

The greatsword does 2d10+6 with an AP of 8. It also penetrates the armour, so its average damage after armour is 14 points per hit. The greatsword will cause massive damage with a non-crit damage roll 17 (10%), the broadsword cannot without a critical hit.

The greatsword needs a 5 (80%) to hit defence 14, a single broadsword would also need a 5 (80%), but dual wielded broadswords need a 9 each hit (60%).

So the average damage per round is:
Single broadsword 5.2
Two broadswords 5.1 combined
Greatsword 11.2

Here the guy with two broadswords is doing less on average than the guy holding just one broadsword and a piece of ripe fruit. But my power attack rules favour dual wield, right? So let's see what happens.

Power Attack 3
The broadsword deals 1d10+7 AP7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+5 AP5 with his off hand. The primary weapon still pierces the armour, the off hand does not. That gives an average of 9.5 per hit with the primary weapon, and an average of 3.8 points of damage for a hit with the off hand broadsword.

The greatsword with my nerfed rules does 2d10+9 AP8. Its average damage after armour is 17 points per hit. The greatsword causes massive damage with a roll of 14 or more on the 2d10 (28%) (non-crit), the broadswords need a crit for massive damage)

The greatsword and single broadsword need an 8 (65%) to connect, and the dual wield needs a 12 with each hand. That gives an average per round of
Single broadsword 6.175
Two broadswords 5.985 combined
Greatsword 11.05

Good damage, but the dual wield is doing less than the single weapon on average, and just more then half the average damage of the greatsword.

Power Attack 5
The broadsword deals 1d10+9 AP7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+7 AP5 with his off hand. The primary weapon still pierces the armour, the off hand does not. That gives an average of 11.5 per hit with the primary hand broadsword, and an average of 5.5 points of damage for a hit with the off hand.

The greatsword with my nerfed rules does 2d10+11 AP8. Its average damage after armour is 19 points per hit. The broadsword only needs a 12 on 2d10 (45%) to cause a massive damage save, the broadswords still need crits.

The greatsword and single broadsword need an 10 (65%) to hit, and the dual wield needs a 14 (35%) with each hand. That gives an average per round of
Single broadsword 5.95
Two broadswords 6.325 combined
Greatsword 10.45

The dual wield is still a bad choice. All attack forms do worse with a full power attack, which makes sense from experience.

That's against medium armour. Lets see what happens against heavy armour.

Case Three
Lets consider against our 18 Str character with a +5 BAB and the Power Attack feat. That's a melee attack bonus of +9. He's now confronted with an opponent wearing a mail shirt, brigadine coat, a steel cap and a large shield. That's DR 9 and Defense 14, making this the first case with heavy armour.

Should our character fight with two broadswords, or one greatsword?

No Power Attack
Without using power attack the broadsword deals 1d10+4 damage and has an Armour Piercing of 7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+2 with an Armour Piercing of 5 with his off hand. neiother pierces the armour. That gives an average of 2 per hit with the primary weapon, and 1.3 per hit with the off hand broadsword. Ouch!

The greatsword does 2d10+6 with an AP of 8. It doesn't penetrate the armour either, so its average damage after armour is 8.04 per hit. Neither a broadsword nor the greatsword cannot cause massive damage without a critical hit.

The greatsword and single broadsword need a 5 (80%) to hit defence 14, but dual wielded broadswords need a 9 each hit (60%).

The average damage per round is:
Single broadsword 1.6
Two broadswords 1.98 combined
Greatsword 6.432

So the two handed weapon is clearly the better choice. What about with the nerfed power attack?

Power Attack 3
The broadsword deals 1d10+7 AP7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+5 AP5 with his off hand. That gives an average of 3.8 per hit with the primary weapon, and an average of 2.5 points of damage for a hit with the off hand broadsword.

The greatsword with my nerfed rules does 2d10+9 AP8. Its average damage after armour is 11 points per hit. The greatsword causes massive damage with a damage roll of 20 (1%).

The greatsword and single broadsword need an 8 (65%) to connect, and the dual wield needs a 12 with each hand. That gives an average per round of
Single broadsword 3.47
Two broadswords 2.835 combined
Greatsword 7.15

That heavy armour is tough. Dual wielding is not helping - better use the greatsword (and get an extra move action to boot).

Power Attack 5
The broadsword deals 1d10+9 AP7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+7 AP5 with the off hand. That gives an average of 5.5 per hit with the primary hand broadsword, and an average of 3.8 for a hit with the off hand.

The greatsword with my nerfed rules does only 2d10+11 AP8. Its average damage after armour is 13 points per hit. The broadsword needs an 18 on 2d10 (6%) to cause a massive damage save, the broadswords still need crits.

The greatsword and single broadsword need an 10 (65%) to hit, and the dual wield needs a 14 (35%) with each hand. That gives an average per round of
Single broadsword 3.025
Two broadswords 3.255 combined
Greatsword 7.15

So the greatsword is still the clear winner, even under the nerfed system.

But a +5 BAB isn't very high. Lets move up some levels.

Case Four
Our character now has a BAB of +10. Lets assume he has the feats Power Attack, Weapon Focus (broadsword and greatsword), Weapon Specialization (broadsword and greatsword), and Improved Two Weapon Fighting. Those feats should heavily favour the dual wield approach, right? The character has a melee attack of +15.

Again, lets pit him against an opponent wearing a mail shirt, brigadine coat, a steel cap and a large shield. That's DR 9 and Defense 14.

No Power Attack
Without using power attack the broadsword deals 1d10+6 damage and has an Armour Piercing of 7 in the primary hand, and 1d10+4 with an Armour Piercing of 5 with his off hand. Niether weapon pierces the armour. That gives an average of 3.1 per hit with the primary broadsword, and an average of 2 points of damage for a hit with the off hand.

The greatsword does 2d10+8 with an AP of 8. It doesn't penetrate the armour either, so its average damage after armour is 10 points per hit. Neither weapon can cause massive damage without a critical hit.

The greatsword needs a 2 (95%) to hit with its first attack, and a 4 (85%) with its second, the same as a single broadsword. The double broadsword character needs a 8 (65%) for the first attack with each weapon, and a 13 (40%) for the second attack with each weapon.

The average damage per round becomes:
Single broadsword 5.58
Two broadswords 7.905 combined
Greatsword 9.5 single attack
Greatsword 18 full attack

Here the greatsword out performs the dual wield even with just a single attack. Lets see how the nerfed power attack helps the dual wield.

Power Attack 5
The broadsword deals 1d10+11 AP7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+9 AP5 with his off hand. That gives an average of 7.5 per hit with the primary weapon, and an average of 5.2 for a hit with the off hand broadsword.

The greatsword with my nerfed rules does 2d10+13 AP8. Its average damage after armour is 15 points per hit. The greatsword causes massive damage with a damage roll of 16 (15%), even without a critical hit.

The greatsword and single broadsword need an 4 (85%) to connect with their first attack, and a 9 (60%) with their second. The dual wield needs a 8 (65%) for each first attack, and a 13 (40%) with each second attack.

The average damage per round is:
Single broadsword 10.875
Two broadswords 13.65 combined
Greatsword 12.75 single attack
Greatsword 21.75 full attack

So at least the dual wield full attack action does more damage than the two-handed single attack action. But it needs to go a long way to catch the two-handed full attack action.

Let's swing even harder.

Power Attack 10
The broadsword deals 1d10+16 AP7 with his primary hand, and 1d10+14 AP5 with his off hand. That gives an average of 12.5 per hit with the primary weapon, and an average of 10.5 for a hit with the off hand broadsword.

The nerfed greatsword does 2d10+18 AP8. Its average damage after armour is a meaty 20 points per hit. The greatsword causes massive damage with a damage roll of 11 (55%), even without a critical hit! The braodswords still need criticals to cause massive damage.

The greatsword and single broadsword need an 9 (60%) to connect with their first attack, and a 14 (35%) with their second. The dual wield needs a 13 (40%) for each first attack, and a 18 (15%) with each second attack.

The average damage per round is:
Single broadsword 11.875
Two broadswords 12.65 combined
Greatsword 12 single attack
Greatsword 19 full attack, nerfed

Even with very favourable feats, the greatsword beats two broadswords. The greatsword would probably do better even without Weapon Focus (greatsword) and Weapon Specialization (greatsword).

Conclusion
(Assuming I didn't make any huge math errors)

Using two regular melee weapons sucks, as it should. Two handed weapons are the best approach to killing people in heavy armour, even with my reduced power attack.

If we continue to increase the BAB, the average damage of the dual wield may increase. But as can be in the Power Attack 10 case, the rate at which two handed weapons cause massive damage saves becomes statistically significant.

It may be possible to find armour, Str, BAB and Power Attack combinations where the dual wield does better than my examples above. I seriously doubt they'll ever manage to match the two handed weapon totals, even with my altered Power Attack.

It might be interesting to see how a character with two warhammers fares against heavy armour. It would look pretty dumb, though.

Note that the above cases are not the worse cases for dual wields. It's easy to find the case where neither single handed weapon penetrates armour, while the two handed weapon does. That scenario favours two-handers even more.

I challenge anyone to calculate what non-nerfed power attacks do. I predict it will be grotesque.

The above examples do not consider finesse attacks or sneak attacks. Sneak attacks are a completely different problem.
Scott
jadrax
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 10:49 pm
Location: Middlesbrough
Contact:

Postby jadrax » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:40 pm

You need to at the very least factor the possibility of crits into your maths.
User avatar
Trodax
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Trodax » Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:53 pm

Sutek wrote:So a max of 16 points is better than a max of 20? 4 point max damage difference, or a 2 point average damage difference?

I guess I just dont'see where 2-4 points makes a difference when the average character hit die is generating that or more per level (die + CON) and the maximums are still either 4 or 5 times that kind of per level ammount. (This is assuming a d6=3, d8=4 and d10=5 for stright hit dice and that most CON bonuses are going ot be above zero).
Is there a difference between 2d10 and 2d8 with the rules for massive damage and armor=DR being as they are? Why, yes, there is.
Would two-handed weapons still be badass damage-dealers? Certainly.

Seriously, what kind of change did you think I was advocating? 1d12 damage for a greatsword? I've been talking about a small (but certainly noticeable) change this entire thread. If you've been thinking otherwise, you should have read the first post of this thread more carefully.
Netherek
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Washington

Postby Netherek » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:15 pm

Hate to say this, but the math is wrong. AP doesn't fuctuate based on what hand you use.

I know the mongooses have said otherwise but the RAW does not support that.
The Character wielding the weapon adds his Strength modifier to his AP score, if he is also able to add his Strength modifier or some multiple of it to his damage roll with the weapon.
This is clear and definitive.
Apply Strength Modifier's to:
1. Melee attack rolls.
2. Damage rolls when using melee weapon or thrown weapon, including sling. Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the Strength Bonus, while two-handed attacks receiveone and a half the Strength bonus. A strength penalty not a bonus applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
3.Strength based skills.
4. Strength checks.
5. Parry rolls.
The use of bonus is clearly meant to apply to a positive strength modifier as it be silly when you apply the multiple to a negative strength modifier.

While all this is off topic, it does affect your numbers...
User avatar
sbarrie
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby sbarrie » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:50 pm

Netherek wrote:Hate to say this, but the math is wrong. AP doesn't fuctuate based on what hand you use.
I disagree, and that obviously only affects Case Two. If you care to comment (or check the actual math) on Cases One, Three and Four, I'll gladly post corrections to Case Two based on your method for calculating AP. I suspect the change will be minimal.
Scott
User avatar
sbarrie
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby sbarrie » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:23 am

jadrax wrote:You need to at the very least factor the possibility of crits into your maths.
Not really. All combat types increase, so the relative change will be small, and the current trend is very large.

To calculate the effect of critcals, consider that with a threat range of 19-20, 10% of all hits will be crits (except attacks that only hit on a 20 or only miss on a 1). Therefore, the average damage increases by 10% of the average damage roll, if the original damage absorbed all the armour reduction.

So in Case One, no power attack, each broadsword increases its average damage per hit by 5.5/10 = 0.55, and the greatsword increases by 11/10 = 1.1. This approximation is slightly generous to the broadsword, since often the original damage is completely reduced by the armour, with armour left to spare.

In Case Four, +10 PA, the main hand broadsword's average damage per hit increases by 21.5/10 = 2.15, to 14.65, and the off hand broadsword by 19.5/10 = 1.95, to 12.45. The greatsword increases by 29/10 = 2.9, to 22.9. These values are exact, since all non-crit attacks get through armour, and no attacks only hit on a 20 or only miss on a 1 in this example.

The average damage per round for two broadswords is now 14.905, and for the greatsword is 21.755.

Even with power attack "nerfed", the two-handed weapon is king against heavy armour. Hail to the King. (Hey, has The King been around lately?)
Scott
Netherek
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Washington

Postby Netherek » Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:01 am

Case 4 has an error in the no power attack. The Two Swords should have a 3 and 8 to hit consecutively.

Also note that you fail to apply the math of percentages of doing damage based on frequence of hits.

Case 1:

No PA
Greatsword 60% of doing damage, so 2.736 pts. a round average.
Broadsword 60% of doing damage .73 pts a round.
2Broads have 80% (40+40) of doing, so averages 1.04 a round.

PA 5
G 35%, making 3.136 pts. a round
B 35%, 1.33 pts a round
2B 30%, 1.14 pts a round

Case 3

No PA
G 80%, or 6.432
B 80%, or 1.6
2B 120% (60*2), 1.98

PA 3
G 65%, 7.15
B 65%, or 2.47
B 90% (45*2), or 2.835

PA 5
G 55%, or 6.402
B 55%, or 3.025
2B 70% (35*2), or 3.255

Case 4

No PA
G 180% (95+85), or 18 average a round
2B has 310% (90+90+65+65), 5.355

PA 5
G has 145% (85+60), or 21.75
2B has 210% (65+65+40+40), or 13.65

PA 10
G has 95% (60+35), or 20.6625
2B has 110% (40+40++15+15), or 12.6525

Let's look at your method without Armour...

Case 4 against an unarmoured foe.
PA 5
G has a mean of 34.8
2B has a mean of 32.55

PA10
G has a mean of 27.55
2B has a mean 22.55

This may look good, but lets look at when the first blow hits for each weapon.

Case 4 w/o Armour
PA10
G averages 29 a hit, with a max of 38 w/o a crit.
2B hit on first set, have 41 average and a 50.

That is highly scewed in favor of 2B, in addition, despite the mean average damage, your positions PA w/ 2B when facing light/unarmoured opponents of low level as you have a greater frequency of hits.

This is not a good fix, 2B has enough reason to take it w/o the boost you are giving it by nerfing 2hand PA.

Also your point proves the value of Armour (or flaw in armour rules depending on point ot view), not that PA is wrong or flawed in RAW.
Netherek
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Washington

Postby Netherek » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:15 am

Now let's do another comparison, Broad and Shield vs. Greatsword.

Assume a soldier meeting his counterpart with your hero armed with a Greatsword, and his foe is armed with a Broadsword and Lg. Shield. They each have 18 str, Wpn focus and Specialization, Parry, and Power Attack. This will give each a BAB +15, Parry bonus +12, and we'll change armour for each case...

Case 5:
Assume the opponents are unarmoured.

No PA.
G has a base 75% (50 + 25, or 11/15) for a mean 14.25 pts a round
B/S has a base 115% (70+45, or 7/12) for a mean 13.225
Now this would match up with any PA style and clearly shows a favor to shields.

PA 5.
G has a Base 30% (25+5, or 16/20) for a mean 7.2 (yet can top at 33 a hit)
B/S has a Base 65% (45+20, or 12/17) for a 10.725 (yet top 21 a hit)

PA 10.
G has base 10% (5+5, or 20/20) for a 2.9 (yet a top of 38 a hit, 29 average hit)
B/S has a base 25% (20+5, or 17/20) for a 5.375 (yet max 26, 21.5 average)

Clearly the shield has been under-rated.

Using RAW
No PA.
G has a base 75% (50 + 25, or 11/15) for a mean 14.25 pts a round
B/S has a base 115% (70+45, or 7/12) for a mean 13.225
Reprinted for basis.

PA 6
G has a 45% (35+10, or 14/19) for a mean 11.25 (yet a 34 top, 25 average hit)
B/S has a 55%(40+15, or 13/18 ) for a mean 9.25 (yet a 22/17.5 per hit)

PA 10
G has a Base 30% (25+5, or 16/20) for a mean 11.4 (yet a 38/29 per hit)
B/S has a base 25% (20+5, or 17/20) for a mean 5.375 (yet 26/21.5 a hit)

RAW appears to work properly on unarmoured foes...

Case 6:
Assume Mail Shirt, Brigandine Coat, and a Helmet, DR9

Your Method...
No PA.
G has a base 75% (50 + 25, or 11/15) for a mean 7.5 pts a round
B/S has a base 115% (70+45, or 7/12) for a mean 3.565
Wow, Armour is significant in Conan... (not surprising really, it should be)

PA 5.
G has a Base 30% (25+5, or 16/20) for a mean 4.5 (yet can top at 33 a hit)
B/S has a Base 65% (45+20, or 12/17) for a 4.875 (yet top 21 a hit)

PA 10.
G has base 10% (5+5, or 20/20) for a 2 (yet a top of 38 a hit, 29 average hit)
B/S has a base 25% (20+5, or 17/20) for a 3.125 (yet max 26, 21.5 average)

What's going on here?

RAW
No PA.
G has a base 75% (50 + 25, or 11/15) for a mean 7.5 pts a round
B/S has a base 115% (70+45, or 7/12) for a mean 3.565
Reprinted for basis.

PA 6
G has a 45% (35+10, or 14/19) for a mean 7.2 (yet a 25 top, 16 average hit)
B/S has a 55%(40+15, or 13/18 ) for a mean 4.675 (yet a 13/8.5 per hit)

PA 10
G has a Base 30% (25+5, or 16/20) for a mean 6 (yet a 29/20 per hit)
B/S has a base 25% (20+5, or 17/20) for a mean 3.125 (yet 17/12.5 a hit)

Would you look at that, RAW remains fairly consistent even with armour! 8)
Last edited by Netherek on Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Trodax
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Trodax » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:44 am

Netherek, I think there are some errors in your calculations. For example:
Netherek wrote:No PA.
G has a base 75% (50 + 25, or 11/15) for a mean 14.25 pts a round
B/S has a base 115% (70+45, or 7/12) for a mean 26.45
The broadsword damage is way high. If I'm getting what you're doing correctly, it should be exactly half of what you have there: 1,15*(5,5+4+2) = 13,225
Netherek
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Washington

Postby Netherek » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:46 pm

Trodax wrote:Netherek, I think there are some errors in your calculations. For example:
Netherek wrote:No PA.
G has a base 75% (50 + 25, or 11/15) for a mean 14.25 pts a round
B/S has a base 115% (70+45, or 7/12) for a mean 26.45
The broadsword damage is way high. If I'm getting what you're doing correctly, it should be exactly half of what you have there: 1,15*(5,5+4+2) = 13,225
You are indeed correct, I must have hit 225% (instead of 115%) when calculating that #, the rest are correct. I have corrected the post to reflect that, and the #'s really balance out in RAW.

Funny thing is, everything in the d20 grows exponentially when you compare against opponents of different levels, one of the many reasons for CR.

PA is one of those that gets horribly scewed when you are of a greater level than your adversary, but some fail to notice that all it's potential is some what wasted as that excess damage doesn't go any where.
slaughterj
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:19 pm

Postby slaughterj » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:39 pm

Netherek wrote:
Trodax wrote:Netherek, I think there are some errors in your calculations. For example:
Netherek wrote:No PA.
G has a base 75% (50 + 25, or 11/15) for a mean 14.25 pts a round
B/S has a base 115% (70+45, or 7/12) for a mean 26.45
The broadsword damage is way high. If I'm getting what you're doing correctly, it should be exactly half of what you have there: 1,15*(5,5+4+2) = 13,225
You are indeed correct, I must have hit 225% (instead of 115%) when calculating that #, the rest are correct. I have corrected the post to reflect that, and the #'s really balance out in RAW.

Funny thing is, everything in the d20 grows exponentially when you compare against opponents of different levels, one of the many reasons for CR.

PA is one of those that gets horribly scewed when you are of a greater level than your adversary, but some fail to notice that all it's potential is some what wasted as that excess damage doesn't go any where.
What wasted excess damage? You mean the damage which is in excess of putting your foe at -1 HP? You realize there are advantages to putting foes at -10 HP, right?
User avatar
Sutek
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Location: Houston Texas

Postby Sutek » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:47 pm

There's no need to put foes at -10 HP, because once they are disable and dying all anyone needs to do is casually walk around coup de gracing,

Besides, anything over 20pts of damage is wasted unless the target has a phenomenal FORT save, because otherwise the massive damage will kill without having to do more damage than that.

So, yeah...excess damage.
AE Errata Thread
"Occam's razor makes the cutting clean..."
Netherek
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Washington

Postby Netherek » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:33 am

slaughterj wrote:What wasted excess damage? You mean the damage which is in excess of putting your foe at -1 HP? You realize there are advantages to putting foes at -10 HP, right?
I see you like to live it up, Slaughterj! :twisted:
jadrax
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 10:49 pm
Location: Middlesbrough
Contact:

Postby jadrax » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:23 pm

slaughterj wrote: What wasted excess damage? You mean the damage which is in excess of putting your foe at -1 HP? You realize there are advantages to putting foes at -10 HP, right?
Not when your a pirate theres not, Killing a Foe in one blow mucks up my intimidate!
slaughterj
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:19 pm

Postby slaughterj » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:52 pm

Sutek wrote:There's no need to put foes at -10 HP, because once they are disable and dying all anyone needs to do is casually walk around coup de gracing,
Provided you have the time and inclination. That might not be appropriate for some character concepts, for instance. Plus it avoids anybody doing any funny stuff ;)
slaughterj
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:19 pm

Postby slaughterj » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:53 pm

Netherek wrote:
slaughterj wrote:What wasted excess damage? You mean the damage which is in excess of putting your foe at -1 HP? You realize there are advantages to putting foes at -10 HP, right?
I see you like to live it up, Slaughterj! :twisted:
I like to see foes stay down! :wink:
Netherek
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Washington

Postby Netherek » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:18 pm

That is so true!
User avatar
sbarrie
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby sbarrie » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Netherek wrote:Case 4 has an error in the no power attack. The Two Swords should have a 3 and 8 to hit consecutively.
Right you are. However, the math for the average damage per round is correct (3.1*1.55 + 2*1.55)=7.905.
Also note that you fail to apply the math of percentages of doing damage based on frequence of hits.
What? You mean the part I put in bold? Please look again.
Case 1:

No PA
Greatsword 60% of doing damage, so 2.736 pts. a round average.
Broadsword 60% of doing damage .73 pts a round.
2Broads have 80% (40+40) of doing, so averages 1.04 a round.
So you have the greatsword doing 4.56 on average per hit instead of 4.76. Otherwise identical to my results, right?
PA 5
G 35%, making 3.136 pts. a round
B 35%, 1.33 pts a round
2B 30%, 1.14 pts a round
Here you found the greatsword to do 9 on average instead of 9.35, correct? Otherwise identical.
Case 3

No PA
G 80%, or 6.432
B 80%, or 1.6
2B 120% (60*2), 1.98

PA 3
G 65%, 7.15
B 65%, or 2.47
B 90% (45*2), or 2.835

PA 5
G 55%, or 6.402
B 55%, or 3.025
2B 70% (35*2), or 3.255
All identical, except the greatsword in PA 5.
Case 4

No PA
G 180% (95+85), or 18 average a round
2B has 310% (90+90+65+65), 5.355

PA 5
G has 145% (85+60), or 21.75
2B has 210% (65+65+40+40), or 13.65

PA 10
G has 95% (60+35), or 20.6625
2B has 110% (40+40++15+15), or 12.6525
I think your math for two broadswords in the No PA case is low. See my calculation at the top of the page.

In PA 10 you have the average damage of a greatsword as 21.75 instead of my 20, right? Otherwise identical. I'll have to check how I've been calculating average damage with the greatsword.
Let's look at your method without Armour...

Case 4 against an unarmoured foe.
PA 5
G has a mean of 34.8
2B has a mean of 32.55

PA10
G has a mean of 27.55
2B has a mean 22.55
It looks like your calculations show that two broadswords aren't even great when fighting unarmoured opponents.
This may look good, but lets look at when the first blow hits for each weapon.

Case 4 w/o Armour
PA10
G averages 29 a hit, with a max of 38 w/o a crit.
2B hit on first set, have 41 average and a 50.
Why would you consider a calculation like this? To prove that the only time to use two broadswords is if you can automatically hit unarmoured opponents? If a character is in that situation, he could just as well use a large hat as a weapon.
That is highly scewed in favor of 2B, in addition, despite the mean average damage, your positions PA w/ 2B when facing light/unarmoured opponents of low level as you have a greater frequency of hits.

This is not a good fix, 2B has enough reason to take it w/o the boost you are giving it by nerfing 2hand PA.
I think I've shown very clearly that my fix does not give two weapons an advantage against two handed weapons. And your math doubly confirmed it. Seriously, the only type of foe you've put forward against whom the two broadsword character excels is one with no armour and who does not move.

There should be some times when using two weapons is useful. Multiple, lightly armoured foes is one of those times, due to your ability to spread the damage around. Heavily armoured foes, multiple or not, is not one of those times. My Power Attack tweak supports this quite well.
Scott

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests