Are crit only weapon abilities worth it?

[FreeTheSlaves]

For conveniance I'll do some math in the open using my pre-existing example but I'll change the weapons.

The first character is my 25pt buy paladin with a base 15 str because I am part-powergamer. He has weapon focus & has increased his str to 16 at 4th level. The target AC will use the SR calculation of 12+CR and so his target AC will be 19, which ime is about right on average. I will calculate total iterative damage. One example is with a +3 sword (ab +14/+9), another a +2 flaming sword (ab+13/+8), & the last with a +1 flaming burst sword (ab +12/+7). Normally such a weapon is aquired 1+ levels later so there will be some additional distortion.

Layout is the following: A = P{D[1+Pc(Mc-1)] + Db}
For bonus critical dice I insert: +Bd[Pc(Mc-1)] after the Db & before the closing }

where
A = average damage per attack
P = Probability to hit, as a fraction
D = average weapon damage plus Str, Magic, etc
Pc = Probability to Threaten, as a fraction
Mc= Critical Multiplier
Db = Bonus Damage dice that are not multiplied by a confirmed critical
Bd = Bonus die average damage that only occurs on confirmed criticals

****

+3 sword
9.24 = 0.80{10.5[1+0.1(2-1)]}
6.3525 = 0.55{10.5[1+0.1(2-1)]}
15.5925 = average full attack damage

+2 flaming sword
10.4625 = 0.75{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5}
6.975 = 0.50{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5}
17.4375 = average full attack damage

+1 flaming burst sword
9.38 = 0.70{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5 + (5.5[0.1(2-1)])}
6.03 = 0.45{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5+ (5.5[0.1(2-1)])}
15.41 = average full attack damage

****

Before blowing any trumpets could someone please confirm my extra critical damage die for the flaming burst sword. It gives the result I think it would but...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Okay, this time I'll compare a +1 flaming burst battle axe with a +1 flaming burst longsword. The model user will be an 8th level fighter with 16str, weapon focus, weapon specialization and improved critical feats. He will be targetting AC 20 with an attack bonus of +13/+8.

Layout is the following: A = P{D[1+Pc(Mc-1)] + Db}
For bonus critical dice I insert: +Bd[Pc(Mc-1)] after the Db & before the closing }

where
A = average damage per attack
P = Probability to hit, as a fraction
D = average weapon damage plus Str, Magic, etc
Pc = Probability to Threaten, as a fraction
Mc= Critical Multiplier
Db = Bonus Damage dice that are not multiplied by a confirmed critical
Bd = Bonus die average damage that only occurs on confirmed criticals

****

Axe
12.04 = 0.70{10.5[1+0.1(3-1)] + 3.5 + (5.5[0.1(3-1)])}
7.74 = 0.45{10.5[1+0.1(3-1)] + 3.5 + (5.5[0.1(3-1)])}
19.78 = average full attack damage

Sword
12.04 = 0.70{10.5[1+0.2(2-1)] + 3.5 + (5.5[0.2(2-1)])}
7.74 = 0.45{10.5[1+0.2(2-1)] + 3.5 + (5.5[0.2(2-1)])}
19.78 = average full attack damage

****

Wow, I'm really quite surprised because I thought the sword was going to outdo the axe. Again could someone please verify these numbers? Thanks.
Now corrected, I'm getting the same number for both Delericho, which seems to be different to yourself? :\

 

[Krelios]

People seem to be ignoring that the "burst" weapons don't only function on a crit. They're a standard flaming, shocking, etc. and they have a special crit ability. They're perfectly fine the way they are.

 

[delericho]

Axe
12.81 = 0.70{10.5[1+0.1(3-1)] + 3.5 + (11[0.1(3-1)])}
8.235 = 0.45{10.5[1+0.1(3-1)] + 3.5 + (11[0.1(3-1)])}
21.045 = average full attack damage

I make this 18.5725. I think you've multiplied the extra burst damage dice twice - there are 2d10 added (average 11), which should be multiplied by the chance of a critical (0.1).

i.e. the term (11[0.1(3-1)]) should be (5.5[0.1(3-1)]) or (11[0.1]).

---

As regards the utility of the burst weapons as a whole, I don't think they're worth it in the general case. I think perhaps a doubling of the extra damage dice might be called for.

That said, they have a far higher utility when used against a creature with some (fairly low) energy resistances. Basically, the longsowrd +1 with flaming and shocking gains no benefit against a creature with Fire Resitance 10 and Electricity Resistance 10, while the longsword +1 of flaming burst might. Although even there, the benefit is negligible - average fire damage on the crit is still not enough to get through.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I corrected the above but our numbers still don't match I think?

I think perhaps a doubling of the extra damage dice might be called for.

My thoughts too, I'll do that now to the flaming burst example posted 4 posts back:

****

+1 flaming burst sword
9.765 = 0.70{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5 + (11[0.1(2-1)])}
6.2775 = 0.45{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5+ (11[0.1(2-1)])}
16.0425 = average full attack damage

****

Compared to the +3 sword (15.5925) & +2 flaming sword (17.4375) it gets a bit gruntier. It shouldn't leave the +3 too far behind & I think it is safe to say that the +1d6 elemental ability is the upper ceiling of value for money. I wonder why those dice weren't doubled?

My only thought is that elemental burst is like keen & is something you tag on after you've reached max enhancement and elemental effects. Beyond a certain point any additional damage to one optimal attack is of diminishing value, and one problem with piling on many different elemental affects is that you are begging for one or more to be redundant vs any given foe - especially at the higher levels.

 

[Plane Sailing]

People seem to be ignoring that the "burst" weapons don't only function on a crit. They're a standard flaming, shocking, etc. and they have a special crit ability. They're perfectly fine the way they are.

I suggest you quickly check my post up above (limited maths, really!). I'm including the standard energy alongside the burst effect on a crit and they are woefully inadequate compared to the similarly priced Holy bonus.

Cheers

 

[delericho]

I suggest you quickly check my post up above (limited maths, really!). I'm including the standard energy alongside the burst effect on a crit and they are woefully inadequate compared to the similarly priced Holy bonus.

Cheers

Of course, the Holy effect only applies against Evil opponents. So that's not entirely a fair comparison. Obviously, the Holy power will be better against Evil opponents, but Flaming Burst is better against anything else. And a crit with a Burst weapon is slightly better than one with a Holy weapon, although not enough to redress the balance.

Then again, most of the opponents a PC will face are likely to be evil, so maybe it doesn't matter.

 

[delericho]

I corrected the above but our numbers still don't match I think?

Oops, I forgot to triple the base weapon damage with the axe! Your (revised) value is correct. And, since the longsword and the axe are equivalent, I think this is also the way the rules should work.

My thoughts too, I'll do that now to the flaming burst example posted 4 posts back:

****

+1 flaming burst sword
9.765 = 0.70{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5 + (11[0.1(2-1)])}
6.2775 = 0.45{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5+ (11[0.1(2-1)])}
16.0425 = average full attack damage

****

Compared to the +3 sword (15.5925) & +2 flaming sword (17.4375) it gets a bit gruntier. It shouldn't leave the +3 too far behind & I think it is safe to say that the +1d6 elemental ability is the upper ceiling of value for money. I wonder why those dice weren't doubled?

My only thought is that elemental burst is like keen & is something you tag on after you've reached max enhancement and elemental effects. Beyond a certain point any additional damage to one optimal attack is of diminishing value, and one problem with piling on many different elemental affects is that you are begging for one or more to be redundant vs any given foe - especially at the higher levels.

Actually, the comparison between the +3 and +1 flaming burst show that they're almost the same. The +3 is slightly better, but not too much. As for the +2 flaming sword, this is quite clearly the best option, and that is worrying. (Ideally, all three of the options you discussed earlier should be almost equivalent.)

However, the flaming property requires a standard action to activate. Thus, you either have to give up a round of attacks, or know that the combat is coming. Either way, its utility is somewhat limited.

Perhaps the problem is not that the burst weapon is not good enough. Perhaps the problem is that the basic energy weapon is too good for its cost.

I might be tempted to argue that the energy weapons (flaming, shocking, frost, etc) should be removed from the game entirely, leaving only the burst weapons in play. In that case, I'd consider removing the activation requirement from the energy requirement (it already does not exist on the burst power, of course). Alternatively, you might insist that a weapon cannot have a second energy type until it has maxed out the previous energy type (so, you can't get add the shock effect to a +1 flaming sword until you first add the flaming burst property).

 

[werk]

p.s. I only used the threat chance above, and ignored the issue of confirming the crit which can reduce the chance of the extra damage kicking in dramatically.

That's what I was going to ask. I think it depends on if you use the threat-crit system or the insta-crit system. I play threat a crit, so it will burst much less often.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

This is the first link I posted above & it deals with energy weapons. I think the consensus was that they are the best option by themselves but not too good:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=136204

1) They drop slightly in power relative to pure enhancement the higher the foes AC increases
2) They are weaker for contested die rolls (sunder & disarm)
3) The higher the level the more commonly they are negated by resistances

However, they also play an important part in making 2wf worthwhile & lower str characters get greater proportional benefit than stronger characters. I don't think they should be dropped or reduced to 1d4 because the cure will create more problems.

(Imho, everything pales in comparison when measured by the Holy enhancement due to the implied pc alignment & sheer # of evil monsters in the MMs.)