D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Weapon question

[Jimlock]

Its not a fiction.

Q: Will there be a rebate program for previous owners who buy the new books?
A: Not to my knowledge. Your 3.0 rulebooks should work very well with any support product that is post-3.5, and vice versa. The older books won't be useless, but they won't be perfectly up to date, either; there will be changes. Anyone who wants to investigate the changes before purchasing new books can download the upgraded SRD. You can do that for free.


This means that if I want to see how discipline changed, I just have to search for an upgrade.

You understand what SRD is right? If you do, you should know that it does notincorporate all D&D books.

Therefore:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

is still the only guide to follow. (for non updated material)

Moreover, this actually enforces my argument on how the 3.5 SRD changes the 3.0 books. I thinks that's clear!

It incorporates revisions and updates based on player feedback. This doesn't mean that if I take a 3.0 book and update it myself I will have a 3.5 book.

You do not update it yourself so as to have a 3.5. You Incorporate revisions and updates on player feedback (3.5 SRD) to your 3.0 books.

Major Difference!

Also, the fact that it is compatible means that you can actually use it, like it is 3.5.

Nope.

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

...don't forget those minor changes....

There is nowhere stated that you can use them as they are.

What is said in PH 3.5, is that you can use 3.0 with small changes. Small changes THEY make, not YOU or me or anyone else. Well you can. But its not RAW.

That is entirely your own personal/fictional interpretation.

You do not seem to be addressing my previous arguments either. I suggest you read them first, then answer me.

RAW tells you to use 3.0 with minor adjustments

So they say you can use 3.0 stuff if there is no update.

always with minor adjustments.

There is no update to BoVD so it is legit in 3.5.

Not without minor adjustments, by RAW.

And since its legit in 3.5 specific overrules general.

This also has been addressed before. But i will repeat it...

When the "general" gets outdated (as the 3.0 DMG gets outdated by the 3.5 DMG) The 3.0 specific cannot overrule the 3.5 general. It was meant to overrule the 3.0 general.

Now that the "general" is updated. The 3.5 general overrules the 3.0 specific.

Crystal Clear.

 

[kitcik]

Crystal Clear.

 

[Jimlock]

I can't XP you, but yes I know. But hey, that's what these boards are for - lively debate. One man's RAW is another man's WELL DONE. Or something. Jimlock is a good guy, just a bit stubborn on his rules interpretations.

(see my quote below)

Well you know what my problem is?

For 8 pages now, i've been addressing posts answering to me LINE BY LINE, providing arguments for whatever it is I'm trying to say and counter.

People haven't been answering to me the same way... and that kind of pisses me off. (Not in any serious way... mind you).

A lot of times they posted things already posted in previous pages, and i had to repeat myself over and over and over again, so as to answer to their posts with legitimate arguments once more.

This is tiring i admit...

I assure you that i'm stubborn to the point where one points me how i'm wrong, with legitimate arguments.
Then i bow to his grace...but...
...such a thing hasn't come to my attention... and we are already 8 pages long...


I still believe that those "minor adjustments" are completely by RAW and not by RAI.

As I still believe that by sticking to 3.0 material without adjustments is house-ruling.

Perhaps this is how I interpret/perceive the Rules. Yet it so happens that actual Laws are perceived/interpreted the exact same way in our everyday life. In my everyday life at least, as well as in my profession.

As for the specific VS general, i addressed that as well, with legitimate arguments i believe.

This is were i get of this train/thread. Of course people will continue posting how i'm wrong, but i will not answer to them until i see a viable argument that counters mine.

No hard feelings .. ...See you guys on the other threads.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not to derail the lively discussion, but I put together a spreadsheet that highlights the tradeoff.

Thanks.

There is, however, a slight error in your chart.

Succinctly, your equation is only true for those cases in which all possible threat rolls are also successful hit rolls (e.g., they hold for a scimitar only so long as an 18 or better hits).

However, your chart continues down into very low to-hit percentages, and is flexible enough to allow for Improved Crit / Keen weapons, which exacerbates the issue.

Accordingly, the proper way to calculate average damage per swing is:

Chance to Miss * Miss Damage + Chance to Hit but Not Crit * Normal Damage + Chance to Hit and Crit * Crit Damage

The first obviously drops out in 3.5 (most of the time, anyway) since Miss Damage is 0. Calculating the rest involves some fancier math (using MIN() statements).

As an concrete example, the average damage per swing for a scimitar with a +2 damage bonus (5.5 Normal Damage) that hits 50% of the time is, indeed, 3.1625 as indicated on your Base Calculator page.

However, change your "To Hit / Confirm" percentage to 10% - a foe which can only be hit on a 19 or 20, both of which threaten, and for which the threat is confirmed only 10% of the time. Your calculator returns 1.265 as the average damage per swing. The correct answer is 0.605 damage per swing - 10% of the time I'll hit, of which 10% will be crits. So the average damage per swing calc should be:

(90% * 0) + (9% * Normal Damage) + (1% * Critical Damage) =
0 + (9% + 5.5) + (1% * 11) =
0 + (0.485) + (0.11) = 0.605

It's not a huge change to your numbers, but it will have drastic effects when you start using this spreadsheet to review things like, "What if Keen and Improved Crit stacked?" or "What if I compare a Keen Scimitar +1 vs. Longsword +2?"

 

[AeroDm]

[good stuff]

Well, it does discount critical damage to account for the fact that you must confirm a critical, but you are correct that there is an issue in scenarios where an 18 wouldn't hit but would threat. Fortunately, these are such fringe scenarios that they account for hundredths of a point of damage/attack and are well within the rounding error that displaying only a single decimal point creates. Even more importantly, I don't think anyone will dictate their weapon choice on fractions of damage per round, so this is more to give a general idea of trends.

Regardless, good insights. I missed them until you pointed them out. It is appreciated.

Quick edit--the numbers you gave should be: 0 + (90% * 0) + (10% * Normal) + (0.9% * Normal) = 0 + 0.55 + 0.0495 = 0.5995

This is because the first set of normal damage is done on a hit irrespective of whether or not the critical confirms. The critical, then, confirms 10% of the time the normal hit hits. That is, during the 10% of attacks that the regular attack hits, the critical misses, or 0.10 * 0.90 or 0.09 percent crit chance.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Quick edit--the numbers you gave should be: 0 + (90% * 0) + (10% * Normal) + (0.9% * Normal) = 0 + 0.55 + 0.0495 = 0.5995

This is because the first set of normal damage is done on a hit irrespective of whether or not the critical confirms. The critical, then, confirms 10% of the time the normal hit hits. That is, during the 10% of attacks that the regular attack hits, the critical misses, or 0.10 * 0.90 or 0.09 percent crit chance.

Nope - my numbers are correct. If you want to do it your way, then it would be:

(Chance to Miss * 0) + (Chance to Hit or Threaten * Normal) + (Chance to Threaten * Chance to Confirm * Normal) =
(90% * 0) + (10% * Normal) + (10% * 10% * Normal) =
0 + (10% * 5.5) + (1% * 5.5) =
0 + 0.55 + 0.055 = 0.605

I can work it out long form for you, if you want.

I prefer to do it the other way - Chance to Miss * Miss, Chance to Hit but Not Crit * Normal Damage, Chance to Crit * Crit Damage - because it makes comparing across a wider variety of weapon types and bonuses much, much easier (e.g., weapons with a 20/x3 multiplier vs. a 19/x2, or weapons which do +1d6 Fire on a hit and +1d10 Fire damage on a crit vs 2d6 on a hit, etc.).

 

[kitcik]

I can work it out long form for you, if you want.

Any chance one of you will tweak the spreadsheet and re-post it. I am going to save this bad boy.

 

[AeroDm]

Nope - my numbers are correct. If you want to do it your way, then it would be:

(Chance to Miss * 0) + (Chance to Hit or Threaten * Normal) + (Chance to Threaten * Chance to Confirm * Normal) =
(90% * 0) + (10% * Normal) + (10% * 10% * Normal) =
0 + (10% * 5.5) + (1% * 5.5) =
0 + 0.55 + 0.055 = 0.605

I can work it out long form for you, if you want.

I prefer to do it the other way - Chance to Miss * Miss, Chance to Hit but Not Crit * Normal Damage, Chance to Crit * Crit Damage - because it makes comparing across a wider variety of weapon types and bonuses much, much easier (e.g., weapons with a 20/x3 multiplier vs. a 19/x2, or weapons which do +1d6 Fire on a hit and +1d10 Fire damage on a crit vs 2d6 on a hit, etc.).

You're right; I see my error now. [Edit--follow up posts summarizes it better]

 

[AeroDm]

Any chance one of you will tweak the spreadsheet and re-post it. I am going to save this bad boy.

I think this is accurate and removes non-crit damage during non-threats. The changes are actually more dramatic than I assumed and probably towards where Elvenshae was intonating. It still is off a bit because it basically presumes a threat is a crit, but I'll plug away on that too.

 

[kitcik]

Of course I can't XP you again, but thanks!