Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Energy Enhancements are too good at +1 (math)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 2338456" data-attributes="member: 9952"><p>So anyway, I think this thread is pointing to energy weapons being good but not too good. It would be interesting to see how advantageous the enhancement is for relatively low strength & 2wf characters.</p><p></p><p>Hmmm, and I have a free morning to spare...</p><p></p><p>****</p><p></p><p>The first character is my 25pt buy paladin with a base 15 str because I am part-powergamer. He can aquire a +2 sword at 7th level if we assume he can only use half his wealth on one magic item. 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 +2 sword (ab +13/+8), the other with a +1 flaming sword (ab +12/+7).</p><p></p><p>Layout is the following: A = P{D[1+Pc(Mc-1)] + Db}</p><p></p><p>where </p><p>A = average damage per attack</p><p>P = Probability to hit, as a fraction</p><p>D = average weapon damage plus Str, Magic, etc</p><p>Pc = Probability to Threaten, as a fraction</p><p>Mc= Critical Multiplier</p><p>Db = Bonus Damage dice that are not multiplied by a confirmed critical</p><p></p><p></p><p>+2 sword</p><p>7.8375 = 0.75{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]}</p><p>5.225 = 0.50{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]}</p><p><strong>13.0625</strong> = average full attack damage</p><p></p><p>+1 flaming sword</p><p>8.995 = 0.70{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5}</p><p>5.7825 = 0.45{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5}</p><p><strong>14.7775</strong> = average full attack damage</p><p></p><p></p><p>Impressive but what happens if this character meets a harder AC? I will increase the AC19 to 24.</p><p></p><p></p><p>+2 sword</p><p>5.225 = 0.50{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]}</p><p>2.6125 = 0.25{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]}</p><p><strong>7.8375</strong> = average full attack damage</p><p></p><p>+1 flaming sword</p><p>5.7825 = 0.45{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5}</p><p>2.57 = 0.20{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5}</p><p><strong>8.3525</strong> = average full attack damage</p><p></p><p></p><p>The difference between the average damage of the two weapons decreased as the AC got higher. In particular it can be seen that the iterative attack of the flaming sword versus the higher AC was actually lower than the +2 counterpart. Basically, the easier to hit the enemy the better the flaming weapon while the harder to hit the enemy the better the flat enhancement. Furthermore these numbers do not take into consideration Power Attack which will allow the +2 sword to close the gap somewhat between the two. I will be back to calculate this for better analysis.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FreeTheSlaves, post: 2338456, member: 9952"] So anyway, I think this thread is pointing to energy weapons being good but not too good. It would be interesting to see how advantageous the enhancement is for relatively low strength & 2wf characters. Hmmm, and I have a free morning to spare... **** The first character is my 25pt buy paladin with a base 15 str because I am part-powergamer. He can aquire a +2 sword at 7th level if we assume he can only use half his wealth on one magic item. 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 +2 sword (ab +13/+8), the other with a +1 flaming sword (ab +12/+7). Layout is the following: A = P{D[1+Pc(Mc-1)] + Db} 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 +2 sword 7.8375 = 0.75{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]} 5.225 = 0.50{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]} [B]13.0625[/B] = average full attack damage +1 flaming sword 8.995 = 0.70{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5} 5.7825 = 0.45{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5} [B]14.7775[/B] = average full attack damage Impressive but what happens if this character meets a harder AC? I will increase the AC19 to 24. +2 sword 5.225 = 0.50{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]} 2.6125 = 0.25{9.5[1+0.1(2-1)]} [B]7.8375[/B] = average full attack damage +1 flaming sword 5.7825 = 0.45{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5} 2.57 = 0.20{8.5[1+0.1(2-1)] + 3.5} [B]8.3525[/B] = average full attack damage The difference between the average damage of the two weapons decreased as the AC got higher. In particular it can be seen that the iterative attack of the flaming sword versus the higher AC was actually lower than the +2 counterpart. Basically, the easier to hit the enemy the better the flaming weapon while the harder to hit the enemy the better the flat enhancement. Furthermore these numbers do not take into consideration Power Attack which will allow the +2 sword to close the gap somewhat between the two. I will be back to calculate this for better analysis. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Energy Enhancements are too good at +1 (math)
Top