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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ceraus" data-source="post: 4690824" data-attributes="member: 76818">On average, player crits do double damage.Mid-level characters might do something like 1d9+6 with an at-will: 11 average damage. A 2d6 crit raises that to 22.Their high-dice powers would get a smaller weapon-enhancement-crit-raise, but more dice are maximized, so it compensates. So we're looking at 3d9+6: 21 average damage. A 2d6 crit raises that to 40.Essentially, player damage is doubled on a crit and tripled on a high crit.Then why not just roll for double damage? Well, I must admit that the calculations wouldn't be any tougher, but the real reason is to "average" the crits from small-dice (1d4) and high-dice (2d6 brutal) attacks. Criticals from daggers and axes are not as far from each other as they would be otherwise.As for monsters: as a general rule, half their damage comes from the dice and the other half from the fixed number, like 2d6+7. That gives 14 average and 19 crit.Essentially, monsters do 1.5 times their average damage on a crit. Monsters with extra crit do double the damage.Other posters before me have quite well explained why players' crits can afford to be higher than monsters': players need to shine when they crit but not die from a lucky monster crit.However, as someone pointed out, high-level monsters are rarely menacing in terms of damage.Monster damage is multiplied by about 3 from level 1 to 30. Player HP is multiplied by 6 and much, much easier to recover (much). While I agree that monsters get to inflict more annoying conditions... well, players do too, optimized or not.It's especially obvious with minions, who become crazily easier to kill but see their relative damage output incredibly nerfed. 4 damage at level 1 is too much (1/6 of 24 HP), but 8 damage at level 21 is too little (1/15 of 120 HP). Did they even try?</blockquote>

Verification