What is Brutal worth?

[TheEvil]

Question for you number crunchers out there:

What is the weapon property Brutal worth?

I am looking at taking either the Fullblade or the Executioner's Axe with my Avenger and it looks like the trade off is essentially +1 to hit for Brutal 2. I know from a satisfaction standpoint, the tradeoff is hitting slightly more often for the 'wa wa waaaa' moment of rolling a '1' on the damage die.

From some of the other tables of have seen posted when I was playing 3x, I know some of you must have wored it out by now...

Any takers?

 

[Turtlejay]

You may want to consider the effects beyond brutal.

Feats, powers, and enchantments all interact with weapon types differently. One of those weapons is a Heavy Blade, the other is an Axe. Fighter powers and general feats for these weapons key off of different stats (usually Con for Axes and Dex for Heavy Blades).

There are also Paragon Path considerations, multiclassing considerations. . .a lot of things outside of Brutal.

For what it is worth, my math is rudimentary and it equates the average damage on 1d12 to be 6.5, and for 1d12 brutal 2 to be 7.5. The difference of one point of damage equates to about a die increase (d6-->d8 for example) so if bottom line damage is important to you, then that brutal is effectively a 'power attack' that trades 1 to hit for 1 damage.

Jay

 

[Camelot]

If we were talking brutal 1, it would be close. But the execution axe has brutal 2, which means you can reroll 1s and 2s on the damage dice. Not only that, but it has high crit, which means you get an additional 1d12 damage on a crit that you get to reroll if you get a 1 or a 2! It's not by much, but according to my math, the axe beats out the blade. Let's assume a +4 attack bonus without proficiency (thus a +4 damage bonus for the modifier) against 16 AC, so the average damages are:

d20---------Fullblade---------Execution Axe
1---------------0------------------0
2---------------0------------------0
3---------------0------------------0
4---------------0------------------0
5---------------0------------------0
6---------------0------------------0
7---------------0------------------0
8---------------0------------------0
9-------------10.5-----------------0
10------------10.5---------------11.5
11------------10.5---------------11.5
12------------10.5---------------11.5
13------------10.5---------------11.5
14------------10.5---------------11.5
15------------10.5---------------11.5
16------------10.5---------------11.5
17------------10.5---------------11.5
18------------10.5---------------11.5
19------------10.5---------------11.5
20------------26.5---------------27.5

Which brings the average damage for the fullblade to 7.1 and the overall average damage for the execution axe to a whopping 7.125. There's not much of a difference there. However, keep in mind that these averages change as the target's AC goes up and down! If you're facing a target with AC 17 or more, the fullblade will actually be the better choice! But if the AC goes 16 or lower, the axe remains champ. The test I did was at the closest they were.

Basically, don't try to pick which blade is better overall, think about what enemies you want to attack! Do you pick off the puny minions while your teammates knock out the big boss? Take the axe, and you'll be good against minions, brutes, and artillery. It's good to have nice mobility options with that axe. Would you rather be the one on the front lines, attacking the strongest thing you see? Then the blade is for you, as it is better against soldiers, elites, and solos (unless your DM changed the defense bonuses with the DMG2) with their higher AC.

It all depends on your own gaming style. Clever how they did that, huh?

 

[Destil]

For most avengers (since you lack the stats to easily get feat support for either) it basically comes down as:

Blade - For those who focus on powers that have cool effects on a hit.
Axe - For those who just want raw damage or focus more on high [W] and effect attacks.

 

[mneme]

The quick answer is that, yes, brutal is worth .5 points per damage die. So a brutal 2 weapon with one damage die will do +1 damage per die. (wearing gloves that give you brutal 2 with a 2 die weapon will give you +2 damage per W, which can be quite good).

For an avenger, in particular, my opinion is that an axe, despite the lack of stat support, is better for Int-based avengers (as it does more damage, and the Effect lines on avenger dailies are often better than what you get from abilities that need to hit anyway), but that one can make a good argument for Fullblade for dex-based Avengers (it's not a contest for Githzerai, naturally, but it becomes easier to qualify for HBO (though just worshiping a Skill deity is easier)). And hammers are better if you're planning on taking a hammer Paragon class.

For everyone who doesn't get to roll twice on attack rolls, Fullblade is usually better unless you're playing a class that gets a benefit out of wielding an axe.

 

[Obryn]

IMO, it has a psychological value which outweighs its numerical advantage.

You might not notice that extra +1 to-hit a lot, but damn does it feel satisfying to reroll a low damage roll. And, say, turn a 1 into a 12.

-O

 

[Iron Sky]

I played an Avenger with an Executioner's Axe for 5 levels(5 to 10) and found out that though the Axe's damage was nice, every other combat or so I missed the target by 1 (I kept on going back-and-forth over whether I should be using a Fullblade instead, so I paid attention). Hitting an extra time every two combats is worth the reduction in damage, in my estimation. Might just be my bad luck though...

In an unrelated note, my Avenger and an Avenger my buddy played have both missed as many as 1/2 their attacks in a combat against similar-level enemies due to rolling under 5 on both dice over and over. "Avengers never miss" is a fallacy, or at least an exaggeration...

 

[Stalker0]

I played an Avenger with an Executioner's Axe for 5 levels(5 to 10) and found out that though the Axe's damage was nice, every other combat or so I missed the target by 1 (I kept on going back-and-forth over whether I should be using a Fullblade instead, so I paid attention). Hitting an extra time every two combats is worth the reduction in damage, in my estimation. Might just be my bad luck though...

In an unrelated note, my Avenger and an Avenger my buddy played have both missed as many as 1/2 their attacks in a combat against similar-level enemies due to rolling under 5 on both dice over and over. "Avengers never miss" is a fallacy, or at least an exaggeration...

Both of your results are simply the outliers of the average.

On average, the fullblade's attack bonus will only pay off one in 20 attacks...you just happen to have gotten a lots of those rolls right up front.

Same with your misses. Avenger's mathematically hit very well...generally in the 75-85% range with their oath power on. You and your buddy just happen to get unlucky.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

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.

I *really* don't like missing.

 

[Iron Sky]

Both of your results are simply the outliers of the average.

On average, the fullblade's attack bonus will only pay off one in 20 attacks...you just happen to have gotten a lots of those rolls right up front.

Same with your misses. Avenger's mathematically hit very well...generally in the 75-85% range with their oath power on. You and your buddy just happen to get unlucky.

I know the mathmatics (part of the reason I decided to play an Avenger). I should add that I was experimenting with Power Attack as well (result: not worth it). I've also seen a player roll 20s four rounds in a row, seen a player miss on every attack in a combat, and we even had one combat where ALL the monsters missed on EVERY attack - a whole combat with not 1 hp lost among the PCs. Not saying any of those are normal, but they are things I've experienced.

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.

I *really* don't like missing.

Heh, if missing sucks with 1d20, it really sucks when you miss on 2d20 - three rounds in a row. Not going to happen often - I've gone multiple encounters in a row without missing with my Avenger(s) - but every once in a while, it doesn't matter how many d20s you're rolling if they all come up 3.