Easy one, I promise

[Liquidsabre]

Comparing the longsword and rapier is completely different than comparing the Falchion and Greatsword. With stacking, the falchion blows the greatsword away, especially now that they both get 2-1 power attacking. The drop in average damage dice is insignificant past about level 6, compared to the ability to double your power attack and bonus strength damage.

I agree, for me the falchion looks to be the best weapon for a power attacking fighter. Add in stacking crit ranges and it just get's silly. It's the 2-for-1 trade that gets doubled by a critical that breaks it. Anyone got some math for bringing 2-H power atatcking use here? While you're at it, someone could also compare a rogue (with sneak attack dice) wielding a rapier. Everyone knows finesse-fighters wield reach weapons!

 

[reanjr]

If all the weapons are supposed to have the same effectiveness why not just make them the same. All martial weapons do X, all simple weapons do X etc.?

joe b.

Actually, I've done some mathmatical analysis and most weapons could be determined to be euqal given that they are equal in difficulty (simple, martial, exotic) and in handedness. Since Rapier is the same as a Longsword on this front, they should be equally effective. There are a few sub-par weapons (falchion, I believe, is one), but mostly it works out. There is a certain internal consistency with the way Wizards balanced the weapons, that I'm, sure was intentional, even if they did not use the same algorithm I did.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And longswords can be used in two hands to gain additional Strength bonuses, as well as benefit from 2-for-1 Power Attack, a significant ability.

"You can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage."

Now, that's a line I've always found interesting.

Does it mean "You can't wield a rapier with two hands. (For example, in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage.)"?

Does it mean "Wielding a rapier in two hands does not allow you to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage."?

Does it mean "You can only wield a rapier in two hands if you are not doing it in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage."?

Can a Small creature wield a Medium rapier at all? If so, how many hands does he use, and what Str bonus does he apply to damage? What effect does Power Attack yield?

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now, that's a line I've always found interesting.

...

Does it mean "You can only wield a rapier in two hands if you are not doing it in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage."?

That's the one I like. So, when I wield a rapier in two hands, I do it in order to look all cool and stuff. Accordingly, I'm as surprised as anyone else when, lo and behold, my strength bonus to damage increases!

 

[Coredump]

Taken out of order:



And yet, yours is, as well.

A rapier will not confirm its critical on 15% of "hits." That's crazy talk.

A rapier *threatens* a critical 15% of the time - assuming you don't need more than an 18 to hit. It will confirm its critical 95% of the time - assuming anything but a 1 will hit.

You should be very sure of you math before saying someone elses is pathetic.

The reality is, with one small exception, a weapon that has a crit range of 18-20 *will* get a confirmed critical on 15% of its *hits*.
Yes, some critical threats will confirm, and some will not. *Exactly* like some attacks will hit and some will not. So exactly that they balance out.

Let me try and explain in clearer detail: (I quote myself from another thread)

Lets say you were playing with a bunch of characters, that all had a crit range of 18-20, and you recorded everytime they hit, and everytime they confirmed criticals for hundreds of attacks each. Yep, you guessed it, their confirmed criticals would be about 15% of their hits. (again, no one is talking about attacks, but hits and criticals)

(For people with a crit range of 20. They will confim critical exactly 5% of the time that they hit, no other details are needed.)

Now, you ask 'why?' (actually, it is usually when people don't ask why, they just assume it is wrong...but lets pretend peolpe ask instead.)

Lets say you have a red die and a blue die (both D20) and you win money if you roll the red die above a 15, and the blue die above a 10.
Does it matter, probablity wise, if you roll the red one first, or the blue one first? No.
Does it matter, probablitly wise, if we change it to blue-15 and red - 10? No.

So, assuming you need a natural 14 to hit the bad guy. I tell you you get a confirmed critical if you roll the first die at 18+, and the second die at 14+. But remember, probability wise, the order doesn't matter.

So, it is the same as saying you get a confirmed critical if you roll the first die 14+, and the second die at 18+.

Now, it should be easier to see that of all your *hits*, you will get a confirmed critical 15% of the time. Because all of the times that you roll a 14+, you will then roll an 18+

(It makes *no* changes to the mechanics/balance/probability/anything of the game if you roll to hit, and then roll to see if you confirm critical.)

Which is a faulty way of doing things. Rather, you should calculate expected damage per attack.

But that opens up a number of unneccesary variables. Since the BAB is the same for both, they are both just as likely to hit/miss/confirm. The only difference is how likely they will threaten.
The way SKR (and Staffan) did the calculations is correct. SKR just made the mistake of saying it was slanted. it is (within a few percent) exactly accurate.

{snip excess math}

From what I can see, your math is correct, but it more complex than needed. Just like those equations where everything factors out to leave a simple answer.
Unfortunately, it also leaves an incorrect assumption.

Now, assuming you hit on anything but a 1 (i.e., Chance of Hit = 95%), then the expected damage for an attack with a Rapier is 14.7 damage per hit - when X is equal to 10.

This both highlights the problem, and how easy the answer is.

The problem develops when people mix the concept of damage per attack, and damage per hit. 14.748 is the damage per *attack*, not damage per hit. On average, each hit will do more than that, you just miss occasionally. (.05% in this case)

Now, you went through some complex and rigorous math to get that answer. Whereas I simply say that the rapier will crit 15% of the time it hits, and therefore will do 15.525 damage per *hit*. (13.5 * 1.15). Now you say a 2 hits, so we will hit 95% of the time. Thus I say average damage per *attack* is (15.525 * .95) or..... 14.748.

That wasn't coincidence. Average damage per *attack* if you need an 11 to hit is (15.525 * .50 ) or 7.7625 per *attack*. Now you try it your way, bet you it matches.


Again, I have yet to decide what I think about them stacking or not. But I just hate to see SKR use such poor math and logic to support his point. He can 'crunch numbers' all he wants, but if he uses the wrong premise, it just doesn't matter.


[NOTE: I have always spoken of a small percent error, or small caveats. The 15% number will be a *little* high because of creatures that need a natural 19 or natural 20 to hit. But since those don't happen very often, it shouldn't change the numbers very much.]

 

[Staffan]

A rapier will not confirm its critical on 15% of "hits." That's crazy talk.

The semantics are a bit misleading, but essentially correct. Ignoring the cases where threat range is wasted on high-AC opponents, 15% of all hits with a "plain" rapier will be crits.

Look at it this way: the probability of getting a hit is H. The probability of getting a threat is T. Since you need to confirm the threat to get a crit (a second hit), the probability of getting a crit is C = T*H.

So, the chance of any given hit being a crit is the probability of a crit divided by the probability of a hit, or T*H / H = T.

Which is a faulty way of doing things. Rather, you should calculate expected damage per attack.

When comparing different weapons, you should assume equally skilled wielders. Since the wielders are equally skilled, they will hit equally often, so you can remove the chance of hitting from the equation.

Now, if you were comparing, say, a keen rapier +1 with a longsword +2, the attach bonus and therefore chance to hit would be relevant, because one has a greater chance of hitting than the other.

For kicks and giggles, let's throw in a battleaxe in that last scenario. It is exactly equal to the longsword - as expected.

Battleaxes and longswords do the same average damage. Battleaxes have a very slight advantage against high-AC opponents where "crit-often" weapons might waste some of that threat range, but on the other hand the longsword has a lower chance of wasting damage (damage above that which brings an opponent into the negatives is essentially wasted). I think these two very minor advantages in corner-case situations cancel out.

 

[Vysires]

All this talk of long swords and rapier is misleading. As some have hinted, the true danger of stacking keen and improved crit is the leaping, power attacking, improved crit, keen falchion wielding Frenzied Berserker who charges all over combat yelling "Hasan Chop!"

 

[argo]

Comparing the longsword and rapier is completely different than comparing the Falchion and Greatsword. With stacking, the falchion blows the greatsword away, especially now that they both get 2-1 power attacking. The drop in average damage dice is insignificant past about level 6, compared to the ability to double your power attack and bonus strength damage.

And that is the crux of the situation isn't it? The keen/Imp Crit rapier is balanced against the longsword, the kukri against the shortsword, heck even the rapier versus the battleaxe comes out even. But the falchion versus the greatsword is a problem so we fix it by nerfing the keen/Imp Crit combo? Might it not perhaps be that the problem lies with the falchion instead?

This is the same logic that gave us the 3.5 change to Spell Focus; "oh no, nobody can make their saving throw against the Sun Elf Archmage with Greater Spell Focus and Spellcasting Prodigy ... I know, lets nerf Spell Focus, that'll fix it!"

Eh, IMC I let keen and Imp Crit stack. I don't mind seeing the warrior-types throw around uber-crits if that is what gives them a thrill. I can always beat them up with undead or constructs if nessecary.

Later.

 

[Crothian]

All this talk of long swords and rapier is misleading. As some have hinted, the true danger of stacking keen and improved crit is the leaping, power attacking, improved crit, keen falchion wielding Frenzied Berserker who charges all over combat yelling "Hasan Chop!"

yet of all that combines together I'd call the Frenzied Berseker the problem :\

 

[Deset Gled]

IIRC, the reason given for disallowing Keen and Improved Crit to stack was never the math. The reason was simply that the idea of critting on 12-20 defeats the purpose of critting. SKR addresses this briefly, but only in passing compared to the length of his math rant. I disagree with him on this point. Critting is supposed to be a fairly meaningful event. Its cinematic and exciting. When a player starts critting almost every time they hit, it gets boring.

There's also something to be said about the fact that even though a 18-20/x2 weapon and a 20/x4 weapon are the same in average damage, the 18-20/x2 weapon will do higher damage much more consistently. Even though the math works out to be equal, being able to count on a bit of extra damage can be much more advantageous than rarely doing insane amounts of damage. This brings in factors such as tactics (planning to do a certain amount of damage at a given time) and the wastefullness factor (such as an enemy with 5 hp left geting critted with an x4 weapon) that cannot be modeled mathematically.

So, overall, I am not dissapointed in losing the ability to stack Improved Crit and Keen. I can understand that some people were angered by the 3.5 change nerfing a character they had, but I don't think its that big of a deal. Sometimes, sacred cows and legacy have to be dropped. And its not like this is the only character build that was nerfed a bit by design philosphy instead of mathematic mechanics (I still mourn the loss of Bob, my martial artist specializing in shuriken).