PDA

View Full Version : [4e]Brutal weapons



Darth Stabber
2009-04-02, 03:23 PM
So I get Brutal 1 it makes a d10 into a d9(a nonexistant die) But brutal 2 is Like minus 1 die size +2 damage per die, is that it, or am I missing something, other than slightly more favorable interaction with Vorpal.

Mando Knight
2009-04-02, 04:02 PM
So I get Brutal 1 it makes a d10 into a d9(a nonexistant die) But brutal 2 is Like minus 1 die size +2 damage per die, is that it, or am I missing something, other than slightly more favorable interaction with Vorpal.

That's basically it. It provides a better damage curve, thus reliably dealing more damage. Example: Greataxe (1d12) vs Mordenkrad (2d6 brutal 1): Greataxe has a minimum damage per die of 1, maximum of 12, and an average of 6.5. A Mordenkrad without brutal would be minimum 2, maximum 12, average 7... but with brutal 1, its minimum spikes to 4, jumping the average damage to 8, which is a total average of +1 per [W] over a non-brutal 2d6 weapon, and +1.5 per [W] over a non-brutal 1d12 weapon. Definitely worth a feat, as in Epic Tier, that provides a total average damage bonus of 3 to your at-wills, and only gets better as you increase your [W] dice.

Thajocoth
2009-04-02, 04:07 PM
That's a rather complex way of putting it, but I suppose so. A Brutal 1 weapon that's 1d10 is the same net as 1d9+1, and a Brutal 2 1d10 weapon is the same net as 1d8+2.

Mando Knight
2009-04-02, 04:43 PM
That's a rather complex way of putting it, but I suppose so. A Brutal 1 weapon that's 1d10 is the same net as 1d9+1, and a Brutal 2 1d10 weapon is the same net as 1d8+2.

It's written the way it is so that it's easier on the guys rolling the dice: it's easier to remember to reroll all your bad rolls that it is to remember to drop down a die and add +2 to all of the dice rolled.

Numinous
2009-04-02, 07:12 PM
So I get Brutal 1 it makes a d10 into a d9(a nonexistant die) But brutal 2 is Like minus 1 die size +2 damage per die, is that it, or am I missing something, other than slightly more favorable interaction with Vorpal.

You're right, but your missing something.

d12 brutal 2 == d10+2

but normally when you have multiple [W]s in a power (2[W], etc) you multiply the die result, but only add in the static modifier once.

So Brutal means that they don't have to make an exception to that general rule, it adds in a new rule instead. Plus I think people just like getting to re-roll dice, even if it gives the same result :smallsmile:

hope I've explained myself clearly.

Chris

TheOOB
2009-04-02, 10:10 PM
Yup, so a 1d12 brutal 2 weapon is better then a 1d10 +2. Most characters who will bother with superior weapons will have attacks that do more then 1[W] damage, so it becomes important.

RTGoodman
2009-04-02, 10:17 PM
Yup, so a 1d12 brutal 2 weapon is better then a 1d10 +2. Most characters who will bother with superior weapons will have attacks that do more then 1[W] damage, so it becomes important.

Plus, a lot of folk that use superior/brutal weapons probably got them from Dwarven Weapon Training or Eladrin Soldier, so they get the boost from Brutal PLUS the +2 damage from the feat.

hewhosaysfish
2009-04-03, 07:25 AM
Plus, a lot of folk that use superior/brutal weapons probably got them from Dwarven Weapon Training or Eladrin Soldier, so they get the boost from Brutal PLUS the +2 damage from the feat.

I was very pleased when I realised that my Dwarven fighter was proficient with his funky new Exectutioner's Axe because he was proficient with every axe EVAR!
Is that really what WotC intended with those feats?
Is it OP?
I don't care. It's my axe. MINE! You can't take it way from me now!

Artanis
2009-04-03, 08:09 AM
Yup, so a 1d12 brutal 2 weapon is better then a 1d10 +2. Most characters who will bother with superior weapons will have attacks that do more then 1[W] damage, so it becomes important.
No, it's not better, because it's still absolutely identical.

One weapon does 3-12 damage per [w]
The other weapon does 3-12 damage per [w]

The number of [w]s being rolled doesn't matter when they have the exact same outcome.



Brutal is nothing more than a way for them to make the book more spiffy while putting in dN+x weapons. What makes a book look better: weapons with funky damage ranges that can be a bitch to work with in the current system, or "NEW WEAPON ABILITY!!!!!"?

Dentarthur
2009-04-03, 11:18 AM
It may be mechanically the same thing, but it would create a lot of confusion if they'd listed a weapon's damage as, say, 1d10+2. Some people would think the +2 is a static bonus and get into huge arguments over whether you get to add it in twice on a 2[W] power. The Brutal keyword makes it very intuitive and clear that the "extra" damage applies for each and every [W] of damage.

Plus, even phrased the "1d10+2" way, it is a new weapon ability - nothing else lets you apply static damage multiple times for multi-[W] attacks.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-03, 12:09 PM
It may be mechanically the same thing, but it would create a lot of confusion if they'd listed a weapon's damage as, say, 1d10+2. Some people would think the +2 is a static bonus and get into huge arguments over whether you get to add it in twice on a 2[W] power. The Brutal keyword makes it very intuitive and clear that the "extra" damage applies for each and every [W] of damage.

Plus, even phrased the "1d10+2" way, it is a new weapon ability - nothing else lets you apply static damage multiple times for multi-[W] attacks.

This would hardly be the first time weapons had "static damage" modifiers. The Footman's Flail in 2E did 1d6+1 damage, for example.

Besides, the rule isn't that you never multiply static damage when doing a Weapon attack

Damage: The weapon’s damage die. When a power deals a number of weapon damage dice (such as 4[W]), you roll the number of the dice indicated by this entry. If the weapon’s damage die is an expression of multiple dice, roll that number of dice the indicated number of times. For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit.

It is true that someone might argue about it, but the plain text indicates that the "damage" section of a Weapon's description is applied multiple times for x[w] attacks. Mathematically, you would treat it as x(w)+S where x is the multiplier, w is the value in the weapon table under "damage" and S is the sum of the "static modifiers" that apply to a given attack.

Personally, I think Brutal is described as it is (IIRC - reroll any value equal to or less than the Brutal value) because WotC assumes that people enjoy rolling dice more than doing addition.

Hzurr
2009-04-03, 03:36 PM
I was very pleased when I realised that my Dwarven fighter was proficient with his funky new Exectutioner's Axe because he was proficient with every axe EVAR!
Is that really what WotC intended with those feats?
Is it OP?
I don't care. It's my axe. MINE! You can't take it way from me now!

I think that the way it reads, you get all proficiencies. In the games that I've DMed, I changed it (as well as the corresponding Eladrin feat) so that it only gives proficiency with military weapons, no superior. It's already a very good feat as it is, and if it also gives superior weapon proficiency, it becomes waaaaaay too good.

RTGoodman
2009-04-03, 04:23 PM
I think that the way it reads, you get all proficiencies. In the games that I've DMed, I changed it (as well as the corresponding Eladrin feat) so that it only gives proficiency with military weapons, no superior. It's already a very good feat as it is, and if it also gives superior weapon proficiency, it becomes waaaaaay too good.

According to WotC, it DOES in fact give proficiency in Superior weapons of those groups, too. There was a Q&A or Sage Advice or something that clarified it, and if they meant to chance it they probably would have done so via errata by now.

Loch
2009-04-03, 04:28 PM
Just to clarify.

1d10+2 is worse then

1d10, brutal 2.

As with brutal you re-roll that 1 or 2 and could end up with a 10.

Draz74
2009-04-03, 04:41 PM
Just to clarify.

1d10+2 is worse then

1d10, brutal 2.

As with brutal you re-roll that 1 or 2 and could end up with a 10.

Yeah, but with 1d10+2 you could end up with a 12. :smalltongue:

1d10+2 is 7.5 average damage.
1d10 brutal 2 is 6.5 average damage.

1d10+2 is better.
(1d10+2 is the same as 1d12 brutal 2. Obviously 1d12 brutal 2 is better than 1d10 brutal 2.)

Loch
2009-04-04, 03:49 AM
Yeah, but with 1d10+2 you could end up with a 12. :smalltongue:

1d10+2 is 7.5 average damage.
1d10 brutal 2 is 6.5 average damage.

1d10+2 is better.
(1d10+2 is the same as 1d12 brutal 2. Obviously 1d12 brutal 2 is better than 1d10 brutal 2.)

Thats the thing 1d10+2 is still not better.

1d10+2 generates 10 results, 3-12.
1d10 brutal 2 generates 10 results, but on a 1 and a 2 (20% of the time) you get to re-roll increasing the probability that you will roll average damage is higher.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-04, 08:18 AM
Thats the thing 1d10+2 is still not better.

1d10+2 generates 10 results, 3-12.
1d10 brutal 2 generates 10 results, but on a 1 and a 2 (20% of the time) you get to re-roll increasing the probability that you will roll average damage is higher.

That's not how math works. 1d10 brutal 2 gives the same results as 1d8+2.

AgentPaper
2009-04-04, 08:32 AM
Thats the thing 1d10+2 is still not better.

1d10+2 generates 10 results, 3-12.
1d10 brutal 2 generates 10 results, but on a 1 and a 2 (20% of the time) you get to re-roll increasing the probability that you will roll average damage is higher.

With 1d10+2, you have a chance to roll between 3 and 12. With 1d10 brutal 2, you have a chance to roll between 3 and 10. Except that 20% of the time, you get...another chance to roll between 3 and 10. That second roll is no more likely to roll high than the first.

Artanis
2009-04-04, 08:58 AM
*things about Brutal involving "second rolls"

Having a second roll doesn't make a difference statistically because the first one doesn't matter. A d10 Brutal 2 weapon has a damage range of 3-10 with a one in eight chance of each. A d8+2 weapon has a damage range of 3-10 with a one in eight chance of each. Both weapons' results are exactly identical in every way. You get the exact same results with the exact same probabilities with the exact same damage spread.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-04, 09:41 AM
You get the exact same results with the exact same probabilities with the exact same damage spread.

Indeed.

Also, one method takes significantly longer to roll, especially with multiple-[W] powers. What's this about speeding up combat again? :smalltongue:

Loch
2009-04-04, 10:24 AM
Ok so by this logic the second roll doesn't matter then, Elven Accuracy is useless, what a waste of a racial power *rolls eyes*

I'd rather have brutal 2 then +2.

Grey Paladin
2009-04-04, 10:35 AM
Ok so by this logic the second roll doesn't matter then, Elven Accuracy is useless, what a waste of a racial power *rolls eyes*

I'd rather have brutal 2 then +2.

:smallfurious:

That's the closest I can come to coherent within the board's policy.

Inyssius Tor
2009-04-04, 10:37 AM
Ok so by this logic the second roll doesn't matter then, Elven Accuracy is useless, what a waste of a racial power *rolls eyes*

I'd rather have brutal 2 then +2.

:sigh: Take it to extremes, if you want. Suppose you have a weapon that does [1d4 brutal 2] damage.

You could roll a 4.
You could roll a 3.

OR you could roll a 2 or 1, which brings you back to this table.


You cannot get anything other than a 3 or a 4. Surely you can see this. Right?

There is nothing that makes you more likely to get a 3 than a 4, or vice versa. Surely you can see this. Right?

Therefore, you have a 50% chance of getting a 3 and a 50% chance of getting a 4. Right?

Hm. Half the time, you get a 3. Half the time, you get a 4.

That sounds familiar.

Could it be? Yes, it could! That's the exact distribution of a weapon that does [1d2 + 2] damage!

AgentPaper
2009-04-04, 10:41 AM
Ok so by this logic the second roll doesn't matter then, Elven Accuracy is useless, what a waste of a racial power *rolls eyes*

I'd rather have brutal 2 then +2.

You're not paying attention...

If you get +2 to your d10, you can roll between 3 and 12. On average you will do 7.5 damage. If you get brutal 2 on your d10, you can roll between 3 and 10. If you roll a 1 or 2, you now get to roll between 3 and 10. On average, you will do 6.5 damage. The second roll isn't any more likely to be high than normal. Of course, having brutal 2 is better than not having it significantly, but +2 to damage is just better.

Loch
2009-04-04, 10:42 AM
:sigh:

You're wrong, friend.

Look. Take it to extremes, if you want. Suppose you have a weapon that does [1d4 brutal 2] damage.

One quarter of the time, you get a 4.
One quarter of the time, you get a 3.

OR you could roll a 2 or 1, which brings you back to this table.


You cannot get anything other than a 3 or a 4. Surely you can see this. Right?

There is nothing that makes you more likely to get a 3 than a 4, or vice versa. Surely you can see this. Right?

Therefore, you have a 50% chance of getting a 3 and a 50% chance of getting a 4. Right?

Hm. Half the time, you get a 3. Half the time, you get a 4.

That sounds familiar.

Could it be? Yes, it could! That's the exact distribution of a weapon that does [1d2 + 2] damage!

Yes, however that is why brutal is more useful with higher die,

For example,

1d10+2, if you roll a 1 or a 2 you get a result of 3 or 4.

1d10 brutal 2, 1's and 2's are re-rolled, so you have a chance at getting a higher number.

1d10 brutal 2 has a smaller range of result then 1d10+2.

That is why, smaller range, bigger chance. Tehn again it doesn't really matter as its just how it works and I like the brutal rules.

Inyssius Tor
2009-04-04, 10:47 AM
Yes, however that is why brutal is more useful with higher die,

For example,

1d10+2, if you roll a 1 or a 2 you get a result of 3 or 4.

1d10 brutal 2, 1's and 2's are re-rolled, so you have a chance at getting a higher number.

1d10 brutal 2 has a smaller range of result then 1d10+2.

That is why, smaller range, bigger chance. Tehn again it doesn't really matter as its just how it works and I like the brutal rules.

http://nickmilne.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/facepalm2sn8.jpg

It's the same principle! A [1d100 brutal 50] weapon would work the same way!

You could roll [anything between 51 and 100].

OR you could roll [anything between 1 and 50], which brings you back to having an equal chance of rolling ANY number between 51 and 100.

On ANY DIE YOU WANT--let's say 1d12 brutal 2, for instance--it doesn't matter how many rerolls you get! Your chance of rolling a 12 will NEVER BE HIGHER than your chance of rolling a 3, and you will never roll anything below or above that!

AgentPaper
2009-04-04, 10:49 AM
Yes, however that is why brutal is more useful with higher die,

For example,

1d10+2, if you roll a 1 or a 2 you get a result of 3 or 4.

1d10 brutal 2, 1's and 2's are re-rolled, so you have a chance at getting a higher number.

1d10 brutal 2 has a smaller range of result then 1d10+2.

That is why, smaller range, bigger chance. Tehn again it doesn't really matter as its just how it works and I like the brutal rules.

The size of the dice doesn't matter. Those 1's and 2's only increase the chance of getting every single other number on the die. Just because you're rolling again doesn't mean you're not going to roll low again.

Edit: Damn, he went through all the trouble of getting a facepalm image, and he still beat me. Then again, he may have that on ctrl-v. I could see using it a lot on, well, any forum at all really. :smalltongue:

Anyways, don't get too mad at the guy. Math is just tricky for some folks, and even for those who are good at it, some parts are just odd, especially in statistics. It doesn't keep him from being wrong, but give him a break, eh? :smallwink:

Loch
2009-04-04, 11:06 AM
The size of the dice doesn't matter. Those 1's and 2's only increase the chance of getting every single other number on the die. Just because you're rolling again doesn't mean you're not going to roll low again.

Edit: Damn, he went through all the trouble of getting a facepalm image, and he still beat me. Then again, he may have that on ctrl-v. I could see using it a lot on, well, any forum at all really. :smalltongue:

Anyways, don't get too mad at the guy. Math is just tricky for some folks, and even for those who are good at it, some parts are just odd, especially in statistics. It doesn't keep him from being wrong, but give him a break, eh? :smallwink:

*Face Palm* Hehe, Normally im good at maths geuss i just cant get my head round probability.

Inyssius Tor
2009-04-04, 11:13 AM
Anyways, don't get too mad at the guy. Math is just tricky for some folks, and even for those who are good at it, some parts are just odd, especially in statistics. It doesn't keep him from being wrong, but give him a break, eh? :smallwink:

Yeah, I should make myself more clear. I really don't get ANGRY (http://i34.tinypic.com/29mvr4j.jpg) about the existence of the entire internet (http://xkcd.com/386/), so you can assume that I have my tongue planted firmly in cheek if I have to resort to image macros (!). :smalltongue:

Artanis
2009-04-04, 05:09 PM
Ok so by this logic the second roll doesn't matter then, Elven Accuracy is useless, what a waste of a racial power *rolls eyes*

I'd rather have brutal 2 then +2.

...did you even read my post? :smallconfused:

Loch
2009-04-04, 05:58 PM
...did you even read my post? :smallconfused:

Wow, did you even read the rest of thread... :smallamused:

Thajocoth
2009-04-04, 06:06 PM
I was very pleased when I realised that my Dwarven fighter was proficient with his funky new Exectutioner's Axe because he was proficient with every axe EVAR!
Is that really what WotC intended with those feats?
Is it OP?
I don't care. It's my axe. MINE! You can't take it way from me now!

Yes. WotC posted this fact on their main page at some point. That thingy where they answer one question on their main page each week...

Here's a link to this fact in their archive:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20081114