Should the Greatsword be d12?

[keterys]

I... did... but it's a little too simplistic. For example, high crit is not worth more than +1 to hit, and versatile is not worth +1 damage die size. Far from it, even (crits and xW weapons where x > 1 see to that).

That is to say, a +2 hit 1d10 weapon beats the pants off a +2 hit 1d4 high crit versatile weapon.

 

[Cpt_Micha]

I... did... but it's a little too simplistic. For example, high crit is not worth more than +1 to hit, and versatile is not worth +1 damage die size. Far from it, even (crits and xW weapons where x > 1 see to that).

That is to say, a +2 hit 1d10 weapon beats the pants off a +2 hit 1d4 high crit versatile weapon.

Except that weapon would probably also be either heavy or light thrown instead of versatile.

The Gs is undergunned though. I've no vested interest in the weapon what so ever. I view high crit as being more valuable for the sheer reason of it's guaranteed extra damage with no new attack roll necessary. It bypasses a step 5% of the time.

 

[keterys]

Prior to epic level (where doubled crit range lets it nose ahead in general), high crit works out as equal between the maul and greataxe... ie, a whole _.5_ damage per W. Not 2.

At all levels, +1 attack is worth more than +1 damage so long as your chance to hit is not outrageously high and you care _at all_ about the special effect of hitting. If you don't care at all about hitting really (you use Reaping Strike, and nothng else), the +1 attack doesn't matter as much.

But you're also not playing the same game I am

 

[keterys]

The Gs is undergunned though. I've no vested interest in the weapon what so ever. I view high crit as being more valuable for the sheer reason of it's guaranteed extra damage with no new attack roll necessary. It bypasses a step 5% of the time.

Know what else similarly 'bypasses a step 5% of the time'?

Hitting instead of missing. Cause you got +1 to hit from proficiency bonus

I've run a simple spreadsheet on tons of permutations of this and as far as I can tell you're going off pure warm fuzzies from a big damage hit instead of actual provable balance.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

At tier 1, high crit is never better than +1 to hit -- over 20 attacks, high crit gives an average of +6.5 damage, +1 to hit gives +1 hit, which is +6.5 damage if your damage is 1W (with no bonuses of any type, including enhancement).

At tier 2, high crit gives an average of +13 damage over 20 attacks, so if your damage per hit is less than 13 it's beneficial. This is rarely true and is probably not true for your basic attack or any encounter/daily powers, but can be true for reaping strike (for example, with a +3 weapon and weapon specialization, the difference between a hit and a miss for reaping strike is only 11.5). Overall, high crit is still consistently inferior.

At tier 3, with improved critical, high crit gives an average of +39 damage over 20 attacks, which has a fair chance of being worthwhile.

 

[inati]

People are just too obsessed with the Greatsword.

And I agree, the +1 to hit makes it balanced. I also agree that if you modify the Greatsword, you screw up the balance of all the other weapons.

 

[deleteme123456]

I ran some numbers in the following scenario: examine the range of needing to roll a 3, a 4, a 5... up to a 19 to hit the enemy while wielding a +3 weapon (thus a 4...20 for a +2 weapon). I originally ran this with just a "core" range of 5-15 (6-16) and found that the GA > Maul > GS, but a 1d12 GS > ALL, until you factor in expanded crit and then GA is back on top. So I decided to compare the entire range minus the absurd edge cases like where the GS actually crits on 20 but the GA is only just auto-hitting. To account for the edge cases being, well, edge cases, I multiplied the 4 lowest and 4 highest rolls needed damage values by .2, .4, .6, and .8 in order of distance from the center.

Then the average damage per swing is:
Level 1 test, 1[W]+ability (at +4):
(21-number needed to roll)/20*(avg weapon dmg + ability) + 0.05*(
(max weapon dmg - avg weapon dmg) + avg high crit dmg per [W])

Level 28 test, 2[W]+ability (at +8):
(21-roll needed)/20*(2*avg wpn dmg+ability)+0.1*(2*(max wpn - avg wpn)+3*high crit avg per [W])

Note that at the end for the Critical hit which happens with p = 0.05 or 1/20 times, we calculate damage by subtracting the average weapon damage from the max damage because we already counted the weapon average damage once on this hit in the previous part. We then add the weapon's high crit damage, if any. This effectively gives you the extra damage on a crit. For example, a longsword has average damage 4.5 and max damage 8 and no high crit. So if you need to roll an 11 to hit, then (21-11) = 10, divided by 20 = 0.5, which is the chance to hit. So we multiply that by the average damage and get 0.5*4.5. Now 1/20 of these rolls are crits, so we need to add not 8, because we already counted 4.5, but (8-4.5).

I then added up the numbers for each of these ACs for greatsword RAW, greataxe RAW, maul RAW, and greatsword 1d12, scaling as mentioned for edge cases.

No surprise, the GreatAxe beats the Maul which beats the RAW Greatsword. The RAW Greatsword is actaully only better in DPS then the GA when the greatsword needs to roll a 19, and then only at Level 1. The level 28 test is no contest at all although the RAW GS is better than the Maul when the GS wielder hits on 15+ (this is the same as at Level 1).

A 1d12 greatsword, no surprise, is a great Level 1 weapon. It only slightly edges out the GreatAxe even at this level, but is consistently better on every swing, even with the high crit. At level 28, the greataxe is significantly higher than either the maul or the 1d12 greatsword due to high crit being 3[W].

If you narrow the range and only consider where the GS needs 5-15 to hit and count them all evenly, the GS still lags behind. The 1d12 GS is only the slighest bit higher than a GA at level 1. The 1d12 GS and Maul are very close at Level 28 (the larger overall damage numbers means that the relatively fixed distance between them means they are "closer" than they were at level 1) and both trail the GA.

Interestingly, a 1d10 high crit greatsword comes out behind the greataxe even at level 1. It is very very close to the Maul at this level. At level 28, the greataxe is still ahead, but the 1d10 high crit greatsword beats the maul.

Even when I adjusted the scaling factors such that the GS needs a 2 = 0.1x, the GS needs a 3 is 0.2x ... up to the GS needs an 11 or higher is 1x, the GA *STILL* comes out ahead although it is very close.

Conclusion: 1d10 greatsword is weaker in raw damage output. High crit weapons at epic tier are REALLY good. A 1d10 high crit greatsword is behind in raw damage but is much closer. The Maul is uninteresting in most cases.

 

[Mercutio01]

Err - aren't both mauls and axes supposed to do more damage? Am I missing something?

 

[keterys]

Level 28 test, 2[W]+ability (at +8):
(21-roll needed)/20*(2*avg wpn dmg+ability)+0.1*(2*(max wpn - avg wpn)+3*high crit avg per [W])

Curious... is that all you added, +8? Like, no +6 enhancement, no +3 weapon focus, no other damage bonuses from other things?

Also... there are an awful lot of non at-will attacks at all of these tiers. Depending on the game, you might get away with almost never making an at-will attack at level 28.

No surprise, the GreatAxe beats the Maul which beats the RAW Greatsword.

The greataxe is definitely better at high levels (and hammer rhythm can get factored in there to make that comparison tougher), but it isn't at heroic tier. That's easily shown... there may be a flaw in your spreadsheet if you got a different result.

The RAW Greatsword is actaully only better in DPS

DPR if you need to use that term at all. Damage Per _Round_ - and really just 'damage' is better

The greataxe and maul are _supposed_ to do a tiny bit more damage (and it is a very tiny amount), while the greatsword hits more consistently for landing special effects (stun, immobilize, cleave, combat superiority, etc). If the greataxe and maul did less damage most of the time, there would be a serious problem.

Conclusion: 1d10 greatsword is weaker in raw damage output. High crit weapons at epic tier are REALLY good. A 1d10 high crit greatsword is behind in raw damage but is much closer. The Maul is uninteresting in most cases.

Maul gets a bit more interesting with hammer rhythm, but sounds right. Maul > Greataxe at heroic for many characters, Greataxe > Maul at epic. In paragon it depends.

 

[deleteme123456]

Theoretically it should come out somewhere around the same ... each should be a valuable choice that offers something unique. The Greatsword tries to do this with a +1 to attack (at -1 or -1.5 damage), the Maul with a 0.5 or 1.5 higher damage on non-crits, and the GreatAxe with +1 or -0.5 damage, but high crit.

In practice what this means is that the GreatAxe deals more damage in almost every scenario because High Crit is just that good, especially at Epic. Unless you run into bizarre situations where you consistently need 15+ to hit (your DM is mean to you), the +1 attack from the greatsword is uninteresting. And the Maul is only the slighest bit better at average non-crit damage that the high crit damage from the GreatAxe will overpower it (it does have a beter min damage, but that barely enters in, since its average is still on par... it has a low probability of being very bad or very good, thanks to its 2d6 instead of 1d12).

There is of course, the question of Vorpal and how that works with a 2dX weapon, but that's another thread...