Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6267397" data-attributes="member: 42582">No, I meant 12 in 20 ie on a 9 or higher. Hence you chance of critting, assuming a 20 is required, is 1 in 12. Every increase in crit range adds 1/12 to the chance of critting. If bonus damage for a crit is 12 (which it is with a d12 weapon; in general a dN weapon does +N damage on a crit; with double dice weapons crit bonus damage drops, though, to 8.5 with a 2d6 weapon bonus damage and 5.5 with a 2d4 weapon) then each increase in crit range therefore adds +1 to damage.Given that crits are prone to overkill (for the general reason that the more damage you do to a single target, the more likely you are to do more than you need), increasing the crit range by 1 is probably not as good, overall, as getting a steady +1 to damage.Archery style gives +1 to hit. A longbow does 1d8 damage - assuming a 16 DEX for an archer-fighter, that is 7.5 per hit, on average. Increasing the hit range from 12 in 20 to 13 in 20 gives an increase in expected damage of 1/12 * 7.5, or a little +0.5. So it's actually not that strong in damage terms, but archery has other obvious advantages.Getting to add you stat a 2nd time with two-weapon fighting, on the other hand is very good: +stat on a hit is more expected damage output than +stat on a miss whenever your chance to hit is better than your chance to miss, which on current AC values is likely to be the case. With a 16 stat (STR or DEX), it's a straight +3 damage bonus. I think it would be a serious design flaw to make two-weapon fighting systematically more powerful on the damage front than great weapon fighting, especially when it is already more reliable, and hence less prone to overkill, due to splitting the damage over two attack rolls.</blockquote>

Verification