What is Brutal worth?

Mistwell · Dec 31, 2009

I am facing a similar question with the maul vs. mordenkrag. Same damage dice (2d6), but the later is brutal 1. So what is the actual difference there for average damage? I assume +.5 per damage die, for +1?

ValhallaGH · Dec 31, 2009

Mistwell said:
I am facing a similar question with the maul vs. mordenkrag. Same damage dice (2d6), but the later is brutal 1. So what is the actual difference there for average damage? I assume +.5 per damage die, for +1?

Correct assumption.
Brutal raises the minimum damage per die to (Brutal value +1). Add the minimum to the maximum, divide by two, and that's the new average.
In this case, (2d6 vs 2d6 Brutal 1), your average [W] damage goes from 7 (2 + 12 = 14 / 2) to 8 (4 + 12 = 16 / 2). A clear improvement in per-hit average damage, and full justification for the Superior weapon category.

So the question becomes, do you want to have to spend a feat to do an average +1 / [W] damage? I don't but that's just my taste.

Piratecat · Dec 31, 2009

ValhallaGH said:
So the question becomes, do you want to have to spend a feat to do an average +1 / [W] damage? I don't but that's just my taste.

I'm with Obryn. I have a similar feat for my 3.5 rogue - reroll any 1s on sneak attack damage - and I've got to say, it's intensely satisfying to turn a crappy roll into a great one. Because it's "swingier" than a simple +1 bonus to damage, as you could conceivably turn a damage roll of 2 into 12, I find it more fun. And on a 3w power where you get to roll 6d6? Totally worth it to me.

I think that means I'm a lousy min-maxer but I like rolling high.

ValhallaGH · Dec 31, 2009

Piratecat said:
I think that means I'm a lousy min-maxer but I like rolling high.

I like succeeding even when I roll crap, so I like my static bonuses. I've felt this way from when I first started looking at RPG systems about a decade ago; it turned out this was perfect for 3.x, though it's less awesome with 4E (still danged impressive, though).
I also like Effects since they trigger even on a miss. My dragonborn warlord (in a 4E Dragonstar game) wrecked face despite having the lowest [W] damage in the party (I used a sword, everyone else used sniper rifles, personal cannons, or miniguns), largely because I emphasized having all my actions do something no matter how badly I rolled. (The good stat rolls helped too.

)

One of the things I like about this edition is that fistfuls of dice or gigantic static modifiers are about equally good. That's a really impressive bit of game design, and I have to tip my hat to them for that, no matter what mistakes they have made.

sfedi · Dec 31, 2009

Prestidigitalis said:
This is just me, but... If I'm playing an Avenger, my attitude is going to be "I expect to hit damn near every time I swing" -- assuming I'm set up to get the two attack rolls, which, again, I will expect to get almost every time. As a result, if I miss, I'm going to be pissed. I'd go with the Fullblade and take Heavy Weapon Expertise if the DM allows it.

Funny, this is the case when it's better to have more damage, and not more hit (that's in general, it actually depends on the ratio of your avg damage vs % to hit)

Normal:
70% chance to hit, 10 avg damage
Expected damage: 7

With +1 to hit:
75% chance to hit, 10 avg damage
Expected damage: 7,5

With +1 damage:
70% chance to hit, 11 avg damage
Expected damage: 7,7

sfedi · Dec 31, 2009

ValhallaGH said:
One of the things I like about this edition is that fistfuls of dice or gigantic static modifiers are about equally good. That's a really impressive bit of game design, and I have to tip my hat to them for that, no matter what mistakes they have made.

Not trying to be a suck up, but this edition got a LOT of things right.

Stalker0 · Dec 31, 2009

Just one note, but because crits do max damage always....brutal's effect is just a tinsy bit lower than .5 per die...unless the weapon is high crit. For most people the difference is so minor its not going to matter, but for the sake of completeness.

P1NBACK · Dec 31, 2009

sfedi said:
Not trying to be a suck up, but this edition got a LOT of things right.

For me though, hitting more often rather than doing a little bit extra damage is often the difference between adding those bonus rider effects, which means a little extra damage ISN'T as equal as hitting more often.

Felon · Dec 31, 2009

One consideration to take into account is critical hit damage. Having a bigger die in that situation is obviously more advantageous, since the brutal property will only benefit extra damage rolled from the high-crit property (assuming the weapon in question has both).

Prestidigitalis · Jan 1, 2010

sfedi said:
Funny, this is the case when it's better to have more damage, and not more hit (that's in general, it actually depends on the ratio of your avg damage vs % to hit)

Quite true. But I was talking about "hating to miss", not "maximizing mean damage." I'll sacrifice a bit of damage if I reduce the odds of having to melt my dice into tiny lumps of demon-possessed plastic!