PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Different Weapon Proficiencies - What is the Point?



GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 05:31 AM
What's the point of having some weapon profs at +2 and others at +3? After running the math, on average +3 outweighs +2 by a great deal, and even the "best" +2 weapons rarely have the overall damage of a +3 weapon. There just doesn't seem to actually be enough of a difference to justify not simply giving all weapons +2 or +3...

Kurald Galain
2010-11-05, 05:33 AM
The point is that all weapons that aren't +3 have some kind of benefit, such as reach, or brutal, or a bigger damage die.

This isn't necessarily mechanically superior, but some people like doing more damage on a hit even if it means doing less damage on average. Reach, however, is very much worth a -1 to hit in the right build.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 05:35 AM
So basically it's a trap for newbies who haven't done the math? *headtilt*

shadowmage
2010-11-05, 06:16 AM
I like to think the math is a trap for the munchkin myself. If different weapons did not have different feels why not just have a class called Class which can use weapon to attack wearing armour called Armour. With every swing or shoot of their weapon called Weapon for a d6 of damage?

Grogmir
2010-11-05, 06:32 AM
but some people like doing more damage on a hit

Its not all about the maths as is quote says. Some prefer to deal out lots of damage and effect slightly less often than the +3 will give.

Its called flavour, its part of building a Player character that has, you know, character. Not an excerise in mechanical making a PC so the numbers slightly highier than than it could possible be any other way.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 06:32 AM
lolwut? Balance is the premise that one character is basically the same in power as another PC and that options are different, yet basically equivalent in power. Balance, as do most mechanics, preside on math. Math is the basic tool with which we calculate average damage against a certain AC, calculate the chances of winning, and make sure that people are basically on the same field. If you don't use math, you're basically limited to going, "Hey, that looks... about... right, I think...?" or playtesting which is often liable to misinterpretation due to specific dice rolls or circumstances. That said, math doesn't lie, is reproduce-able, and anyone can do it who can do basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (or just has a calculator).

By having two options, and saying that they're equivalent (you shouldn't necessarily be underpowered if you choose a battleaxe over a longsword), you've presented players with a choice. One is the correct choice, and one is a drop in overall power. This should be fixed at the design stage by making sure that weapons are equivalent in power. If they are not equivalent in power, then it creates a trap for unwary newbies who look at the battleaxe and figure it would be cool to use that rather than a longsword because it "appears to do more damage".

Rant:
Rather than saying it's a trap for munchkins, you should be praising the people who are actually willing to take the time to do the math--because that is the only way to actually eliminate trap options, by having things balance out. It's the people who are willing to run the statistical results of various options (such as weapons) who will be able to make a game where newbies are truly free to choose whatever option they want and not be underpowered compared to someone who knows the game well (aka a "powergamer" much of the time). People should be able to choose whatever flavor they want without having to shoot themselves in the foot to gain that flavor. In fact, it's these people you're calling "munchkins" who have the ability to eliminate powergaming by designing a new system or adding house rules to an existing system to make it mathematically sound. What an idea, eh?
That said, my question still stands; does that make +2 proficiency weapons trap options compared to +3 proficiency weapons? I'm asking because I'm considering just making everything either +2 or +3 in my game, but wanted to ask for more opinions before going ahead with it--perhaps someone else knows a reason that there should be a difference between the proficiency bonus of various weapons?

dsmiles
2010-11-05, 06:43 AM
So, all weapons should be +3 proficiency, d8 damage, reach, brutal weapons?
Where's the variety?

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 06:49 AM
Not necessarily--but imagine this. What if specific weapons gave per-encounter or at-will abilities that were flavorful and awesome? For example, if a dagger (sneaky, rogues like it) added +1d6 damage once per encounter when you had combat advantage upon a successful hit, or a rapier (very precise, quick-striking) gave a +2 to attack once per encounter--especially if you could activate it after having rolled an attack? Add on to each weapon more stuff than just numbers, different powers that make players go, "oooh, that would be SOOO COOL to have!" Need to brainstorm more about those.

I haven't thought it completely through, but one thing I'm certain of; there shouldn't be trap options which make you weaker compared to someone who has taken an option which should be equivalent in power. That's the biggy. That and just looking at the PHB, I'm not seeing too many weapons that are brutal :-P That and people already take different ones with lower damage for their descriptors or types. My point though is that from a statistical standpoint, +1 to attack is such a big deal (+10% damage on average if you usually miss around 50% of the time!) that the difference of +1 damage is nothing compared to it, even when taking into account weapon multiplications at higher levels, and misleading newbies with trap options is something I'm completely against.

TricksyAndFalse
2010-11-05, 06:54 AM
[...]People should be able to choose whatever flavor they want without having to shoot themselves in the foot to gain that flavor.[...]

Is there really such a vast gulf between +3 and +2 with bigger dice that taking a +2 proficiency, bigger die weapon is the equivalent of crippling yourself? Or is the difference small enough that you wouldn't notice without hundreds of rounds of combat?



That said, my question still stands; does that make +2 proficiency weapons trap options compared to +3 proficiency weapons? I'm asking because I'm considering just making everything either +2 or +3 in my game[...]

It seems that if all weapons have the same proficiency bonus, the formerly more accurate weapons now need something to compensate. Either a bigger damage die, or a special property like brutal, reach, high crit, etc. Otherwise, people who choose weapons based on the math will never take a sword.

EDIT: Didn't see your next post about powers on weapons until after I hit submit.

dsmiles
2010-11-05, 06:55 AM
Not necessarily--but imagine this. What if specific weapons gave per-encounter or at-will abilities that were flavorful and awesome? For example, if a dagger (sneaky, rogues like it) added +1d6 damage once per encounter when you had combat advantage upon a successful hit, or a rapier (very precise, quick-striking) gave a +2 to attack once per encounter--especially if you could activate it after having rolled an attack? Add on to each weapon more stuff than just numbers, different powers that make players go, "oooh, that would be SOOO COOL to have!" Need to brainstorm more about those.

Ok, that's different. There's variety there. That was my main concern when I started reading this. I could live with those changes.

Blackfang108
2010-11-05, 10:42 AM
My point though is that from a statistical standpoint, +1 to attack is such a big deal (+10% damage on average if you usually miss around 50% of the time!) that the difference of +1 damage is nothing compared to it, even when taking into account weapon multiplications at higher levels, and misleading newbies with trap options is something I'm completely against.
Your point is wrong. Executioner's axe has the highest DPR of all weapons (pre Dark Sun, as I haven't run the math for the new weapons) despite being a +2 weapon.

Edit: and if you already hit more than 50% of the time, it's a lot less than a 10% increase. Also, there are other ways to increase your accuracy.

Kylarra
2010-11-05, 10:44 AM
Eh, it's sort of the same issue Kurald* is always talking about, where a given +1 isn't worth all that much amidst the other stacking modifiers. Sure, it's always nice to hit, but that +1 bonus to hit can come from a myriad of different places, from starting with a higher key stat, to feat choice, to weapon choice, so an individual +1 to hit may definitely be worth less than the potential special ability the weapon has.









Disclaimer:
*If I am erroneously linking Kurald to these statements, I apologize, but I think it is him.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-05, 11:22 AM
Eh, it's sort of the same issue Kurald* is always talking about, where a given +1 isn't worth all that much amidst the other stacking modifiers.

Yep, that's me. No, you don't need all the +1 bonuses to be effective in the game. For that matter, you don't need all the +1 bonuses either to be optimized in the game, because there are several options that really are more powerful than a +1 to hit (such as, for certain builds, reach).

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 03:06 PM
Your point is wrong. Executioner's axe has the highest DPR of all weapons (pre Dark Sun, as I haven't run the math for the new weapons) despite being a +2 weapon.

Edit: and if you already hit more than 50% of the time, it's a lot less than a 10% increase. Also, there are other ways to increase your accuracy.
And then there are characters that hit less than 50% of the time against certain monsters, and for them the +1 is greater than a 10% increase in damage, so the point is moot. Having only recently gotten into 4e I'm not familiar with the Executioner's Axe, but this drives my point home even farther--only people who know the game well will know to go for it.

*searches* Ah, found it. So average damage of 7.5--but you need to spend a feat to get it? If you're spending a feat, you should get something better on average. Of course, I haven't run the exact math on that specific weapon over multiple levels, and the weapon itself is buried in a sourcebook that newbies may have no idea exists, and requires a feat on top of that... all these together just don't make it a good candidate for comparison with other weapons.


Eh, it's sort of the same issue Kurald* is always talking about, where a given +1 isn't worth all that much amidst the other stacking modifiers. Sure, it's always nice to hit, but that +1 bonus to hit can come from a myriad of different places, from starting with a higher key stat, to feat choice, to weapon choice, so an individual +1 to hit may definitely be worth less than the potential special ability the weapon has.

Will newbies know that though? And will their lack of knowledge make them worse off compared to veterans when they take trap options? That's the part that irritates me.


Is there really such a vast gulf between +3 and +2 with bigger dice that taking a +2 proficiency, bigger die weapon is the equivalent of crippling yourself? Or is the difference small enough that you wouldn't notice without hundreds of rounds of combat?



It seems that if all weapons have the same proficiency bonus, the formerly more accurate weapons now need something to compensate. Either a bigger damage die, or a special property like brutal, reach, high crit, etc. Otherwise, people who choose weapons based on the math will never take a sword.

EDIT: Didn't see your next post about powers on weapons until after I hit submit.

The thing is that while a weapon with a +2 bonus to hit might offer +1 damage, the weapon with +3 to hit will increase damage on average around 10% of the time for many characters. Now, if you're dealing 10 damage, both these options are fairly balanced. But if you're dealing 20 damage on a successful hit, the +1 to attack is twice as strong as the +1 to damage.

AtwasAwamps
2010-11-05, 03:15 PM
The answer to your question is essentially: Feat Support.

I agree with you to a certain extent…+3 weapons are just STRONGER on average. This is a part of the reason for the Heavy Blade group’s domination of pure optimization tier of damage.

But feats like Polearm Momentum, Hammer Rhythm, the one where you do 5 extra damage for beating on a prone dude with your axe…those are extremely powerful options that can result in getting powerful, flavorful builds. Hell, show me a dwarven fighter that’s not using an axe or a hammer and I’ll show you someone who’s doing it wrong.

The fact is, feats are what build your character in 4e, and there’s a ton of feats based purely on weaponry to take advantage of. That can tip over your decision as to what weaponry to use quite easily.

Reverent-One
2010-11-05, 03:19 PM
Will newbies know that though? And will their lack of knowledge make them worse off compared to veterans when they take trap options? That's the part that irritates me.

See, you seem be of the opinion that an option that is not definately the best option is a trap. Really though, to be a trap, the person taking it needs to be at a distinct and noticable disadvantage when they take it. Having a 5% lower chance to hit while gaining some other benefit that's nice, but not equivalent to another 5% chance to hit, is not really going to be noticable in play. At all.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 03:32 PM
The answer to your question is essentially: Feat Support.

I agree with you to a certain extent…+3 weapons are just STRONGER on average. This is a part of the reason for the Heavy Blade group’s domination of pure optimization tier of damage.

But feats like Polearm Momentum, Hammer Rhythm, the one where you do 5 extra damage for beating on a prone dude with your axe…those are extremely powerful options that can result in getting powerful, flavorful builds. Hell, show me a dwarven fighter that’s not using an axe or a hammer and I’ll show you someone who’s doing it wrong.

The fact is, feats are what build your character in 4e, and there’s a ton of feats based purely on weaponry to take advantage of. That can tip over your decision as to what weaponry to use quite easily.

Finally, an answer to which I can relate. I'll need to think on this more and look through most of the books that have weapon-specific feats before reaching some sort of conclusion.


See, you seem be of the opinion that an option that is not definately the best option is a trap. Really though, to be a trap, the person taking it needs to be at a distinct and noticable disadvantage when they take it. Having a 5% lower chance to hit while gaining some other benefit that's nice, but not equivalent to another 5% chance to hit, is not really going to be noticable in play. At all.

No, I'm of the opinion that if two options are presented as being fairly equal, they should be fairly equal. One shouldn't be considerably more powerful than the other. Take the 3.5 monk, for instance; in AD&D, classes followed different experience charts due to the discrepancy in power. But in 3.5, all classes followed the same xp chart as though the designers were attempting to say that all the options are viable, good, and able to contribute in their own right. There have been more than enough threads that have shown that this isn't the case.

Reverent-One
2010-11-05, 03:33 PM
No, I'm of the opinion that if two options are presented as being fairly equal, they should be fairly equal. One shouldn't be considerably more powerful than the other. Take the 3.5 monk, for instance; in AD&D, classes followed different experience charts due to the discrepancy in power. But in 3.5, all classes followed the same xp chart as though the designers were attempting to say that all the options are viable, good, and able to contribute in their own right. There have been more than enough threads that have shown that this isn't the case.

And two options that are equal enough that any difference isn't going to be noticed in actual play aren't fairly equal? That fits my definition of fairly equal pretty well.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 03:36 PM
And two options that are equal enough that any difference isn't going to be noticed in actual play aren't fairly equal? That fits my definition of fairly equal pretty well.
"Happening to notice something" is nice. But it's as relevant as biased playtesting with strange dice rolls to the math behind the game. I've been in games where someone played a monk and didn't notice that another person was outdamaging them by far, because we all posted our actions and dice rolls secretly. Does that mean that they were just as good as the dungeoncrashing barbarian who ripped through most monsters like confetti? This isn't about subjective views, it's about the objective math that is the basis for the balance behind the game.

Reverent-One
2010-11-05, 03:43 PM
"Happening to notice something" is nice. But it's as relevant as biased playtesting with strange dice rolls to the math behind the game. I've been in games where someone played a monk and didn't notice that another person was outdamaging them by far, because we all posted our actions and dice rolls secretly. Does that mean that they were just as good as the dungeoncrashing barbarian who ripped through most monsters like confetti? This isn't about subjective views, it's about the objective math that is the basis for the balance behind the game.

Except even if you saw the actual results in hits and damage done in combats, the difference in this case is still tiny. With an additional +5% to hit, that means out of 20 attacks, 1 more will hit. That's insignificant. Especially since you have no control over which hit it is, it could be a random opportunity attack on a minion the controller would have cleared next turn with an AoE attack, or if it comes near the end of the encounter when the battle is decided and whoever you hit would have been killed by your allies before it got it's next turn anyway.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 03:45 PM
Except even if you saw the actual results in hits and damage done in combats, the difference in this case is still tiny. With an additional +5% to hit, that means out of 20 attacks, 1 more will hit. That's insignificant. Especially since you have no control over which hit it is, it could be a random opportunity attack on a minion the controller would have cleared next turn with an AoE attack, or if it comes near the end of the encounter when the battle is decided and whoever you hit would have been killed by your allies before it got it's next turn anyway.

You say "insignificant". I say, "10% increase in damage overall against monsters you hit ~50% of the time." You're looking at things from a subjective view, but the balance (math) behind the system is much more important.

Reverent-One
2010-11-05, 03:51 PM
You say "insignificant". I say, "10% increase in damage overall against monsters you hit ~50% of the time." You're looking at things from a subjective view, but the balance (math) behind the system is much more important.

No, I'm saying that, objectively, an extra 1 out of 20 attacks hitting, which you have no control over, is insignificant.

Gralamin
2010-11-05, 04:23 PM
...What are you assuming with your math? Calculating average damage in 4e looks like this:

ChanceToMiss * AverageMissDamage + Max((ChanceToHit - ChanceToCrit), 0) * AverageDamageOnAHit + ChanceToCrit * (MaxDamageOnAHit + AverageCritOnlyDamage)

The ChanceToHit and ChanceToMiss depends on opponents (Generally, against AC, your looking at ~Level+14, Assuming MM1 monsters. I haven't run the math on later ones), so it varies greatly. However, if we just do a sweep through...

Lets take an example where Damage is of high importance (So a striker). Let's look at say, a Barbarian Who could be wielding a +2 or +3 weapon, The +3 at d8 and the +2 at d10, and using Howling Strike. I thus will cancel out Strength and the +d6, and focus purely on the damage die. Similarly, I can eliminate extra crit damage by looking as if it's the same:

{table=head]ChanceToHit|Expected Damage (d8)|Expected Damage (d10)
0%|0.400|0.500
5%|0.400|0.500
10%|0.625|0.775
15%|0.850|1.050
20%|1.075|1.325
25%|1.300|1.600
30%|1.525|1.875
35%|1.750|2.150
40%|1.975|2.425
45%|2.200|2.700
50%|2.425|2.975
55%|2.650|3.250
60%|2.875|3.525
65%|3.100|3.800
70%|3.325|4.075
75%|3.550|4.350
80%|3.775|4.625
85%|4.000|4.900
90%|4.225|5.175
95%|4.450|5.450
100%|4.675|5.725[/table]

A +2 weapon will always be one lower on this chart then a +3 weapon. Furthermore, the 40%-60% range is the one most often to be looked at.

From this calculation, we can make the following conclusions as most likely scenarios:

{table=head]Chance To Hit With +3 | Expected Damage (+3, d8) | Expected Damage (+2, d10)
40%|1.975|2.150
45%|2.200|2.425
50%|2.425|2.700
55%|2.650|2.975
60%|2.875|3.250[/table]
This clearly shows that +1 Die size, for -1 Prof, is overall a good deal, assuming everything else is the same (strength, Chance to hit except the Prof bonus, Applicable misc bonuses, etc.). Repeating this for any +1 Die size increase shows the same thing.

However, in 4e, Hitting is what causes a lot of non-damaging effects to trigger which more then make up for this difference. Damage is not the only thing that matters.

Hal
2010-11-05, 04:35 PM
The answer to your question is essentially: Feat Support.


Don't forget powers. There are plenty of powers for the martial classes that grant additional benefits if you're using specific types of weapons (usually axes or hammers, from what I can remember).

Mando Knight
2010-11-05, 05:54 PM
This clearly shows that +1 Die size, for -1 Prof, is overall a good deal, assuming everything else is the same (strength, Chance to hit except the Prof bonus, Applicable misc bonuses, etc.). Repeating this for any +1 Die size increase shows the same thing.

Mostly this. In fact, a Striker's desire for a high-die-size weapon depends mostly on his powers: a Barbarian likes large weapons because he has powers that deal a large amount of their variable damage via a large number of weapon dice. A Rogue, however, deals most of her damage through Sneak Attack dice. If a typical Barbarian power of a certain level deals 4[W]+static damage, and a Rogue power of the same level deals 3[W]+Sneak Attack+static damage, then a Barbarian would see an average per-hit damage increase of 4 by upgrading the weapon die size by one step, while a Rogue would only see +3 average damage per hit.

Rangers also desire higher proficiency weapons than Barbarians generally do, since their damage output is through a high number of attacks with large static damage modifiers rather than relying on a fistful of dice in variable damage. They'll deal extra damage if they hit with the lower proficiency weapon, sure, but the lower [W] numbers per hit and the high static modifiers shift the paradigm away from high-damage weapons and towards accurate ones.

Zaydos
2010-11-05, 05:57 PM
Gralamin I must point out that even not factoring in critical hits on a melee basic attack 1d10 with a 50% accuracy has an average damage of 2.75 (5.5 times .5) and that in general your numbers are too low on either side.

Also you can't really cancel out the damage modifiers as they make the largest difference.

Factoring in critical hits you'd have 2.975 for 50% accuracy with a d10 weapon, 4.725 if it was howling strike (with its +3.5 damage); compared to 4.575 if it was a d8 weapon with 55% chance of hitting. Throw in a +3 strength and they are exactly equal (6.225) and at +4 or higher strength you're better off with the higher accuracy; at 50% without it. Don't have time right now to do the whole table.

Also hit only effects really power up the more accurate weapons.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 06:11 PM
Also you can't really cancel out the damage modifiers as they make the largest difference.

This. +1 to attack increases overall damage, not just what's dealt by the base weapon. The whole point is adding the +6d6 or whatever from powers (AND feats), since that'll be the biggest increase to damage and get the most out of the bonus to hit.

WitchSlayer
2010-11-05, 06:31 PM
Don't mind me, I'll just be over here using my EXECUTION AXE

kyoryu
2010-11-05, 06:50 PM
Not at home, so I can't look a few things up...

Don't superior (at least) weapons often have a few more abilities in the +2 camp? Brutal, increased crits, etc? I don't really recall seeing most of those on blades.

Also, looking at average damage per round is good and fine, but at the end of the day we don't just tick down average damage on a per-turn basis. An extra couple of damage may take down an enemy a round sooner when the rolls are good, and on the same round as a blade given poorer rolls - even if the blade is, mathematically, superior in DPR, an axe may guarantee a kill on an enemy due to a brutal bonus whereas the sword may not.

Also, to-hit offers diminishing returns in terms of overall DPR. Dropping the required roll from a 19 to an 18 is a 50% increase in damage... dropping it from a 6 to a 5 is a 7% increase...

Kurald Galain
2010-11-05, 06:51 PM
This is simply a Timmy vs Spike (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) discussion.

Spike wants what is mechanically best, so he'll pick the weapon with the largest to-hit change because overall that will make his powers connect most often, and he'll use math and statistics to figure this out.

Timmy wants to do lots and lots of damage, because that is cool. He doesn't care how often exactly it happens, but he will always remember that time he critted with his twohander and did 86 points of damage straight to the dragon's neck. So he wants the biggest damage dice and biggest [W] powers he can find, plus brutal.

This is a part of game design that WOTC understands very well.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 07:05 PM
And I'd have no problem with that--if the damage totals actually equaled out mathematically from the start.

Gralamin
2010-11-05, 07:05 PM
Gralamin I must point out that even not factoring in critical hits on a melee basic attack 1d10 with a 50% accuracy has an average damage of 2.75 (5.5 times .5) and that in general your numbers are too low on either side.
Incorrect. The correct value is 5.5*0.45 + 0.05*10 = 2.975. Which is my listed amount for a d10 at 50% hit rate. You may be misreading my second chart, which is % chance to hit for a +3 item - the +2 version has 5% accuracy penalty factored in.


Also you can't really cancel out the damage modifiers as they make the largest difference.

I can easily by assuming this is being done by the same character. In this case, the only thing that is changing is a proficiency bonus and a weapon die. The Strength modifier, the feats, the extra damage from howling strike, etc, will be on both sides of the equation, being multiplied by the same values. Expand out the equation and you can remove them from both sides.

That said, my conclusion is "technically" wrong since I should add +0.05% of misc damage mods to Expected Damage (+3 prof, d8 damage). This however, will not make a difference that makes the +3 "Better" unless the bonuses exceeds 3.5 (For 40% accuracy), or 7.5 (for 60% Accuracy) per W, not including that they also count on a crit to make the numbers appear a bit nicer (and because it would be 0.05*0.05*Damage, meaning it would have to be at least 40 damage to raise it by 0.1.)


This. +1 to attack increases overall damage, not just what's dealt by the base weapon. The whole point is adding the +6d6 or whatever from powers (AND feats), since that'll be the biggest increase to damage and get the most out of the bonus to hit.
As I pointed out above, depending on the current case, you may require a significant bonus to over come it. If you are dealing, for example 3[W], and hiting 60% of the time, you need at least 22.5 damage on average (So 6d6 would be around the correct amount) before it gives an advantage to the +3 Prof weapon!

Add in the fact that usually +2 Weapons have additional benefits (Brutal, Reach, etc.), and you have a compelling case for them.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-05, 07:15 PM
And I'd have no problem with that--if the damage totals actually equaled out mathematically from the start.

That's not the point. One option has to have a higher average than the other options, because Spike wants that. And one option has to have a higher maximum than the other options, because Timmy wants that.

Timmy doesn't want all weapons do be +2/1d8. He wants one weapon to be 1d12 brutal 3, because that is more awesome than the rest, so that he can be the big hulking barbarian who laughs at the rogue's puny little dagger. It doesn't matter to him that the rogue might do more damage on average, as long as he can make a big hit every now and then, and make the DM go "you did how much damage??!"

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-05, 07:17 PM
That's called a "trap" if it doesn't balance out mathematically. Might need even moar damage depending on the specific numbers.

Blackfang108
2010-11-05, 07:27 PM
That's called a "trap" if it doesn't balance out mathematically. Might need even moar damage depending on the specific numbers.

You know what?

you keep on thinking that.
It's obvious to me that you made up your mind before you even started this topic and aren't going to be swayed by logic or reason. you just want us to agree with you.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-05, 07:32 PM
That's called a "trap" if it doesn't balance out mathematically. Might need even moar damage depending on the specific numbers.
No, it's not a trap. It's an option that is for a playstyle different from yours.

A trap is not an option that is mathematically slightly worse than another option. A trap is something that looks like one of the best options but is really one of the worst.

For instance, Sure Strike, or Expanded Spellbook, or Alchemy.

Kylarra
2010-11-05, 07:35 PM
FWIW, a +2 difference in base to-hit bonuses hasn't noticeably made my Elf Druid more effective than my friend's Dwarven Sorcerer.

kyoryu
2010-11-05, 07:57 PM
Timmy doesn't want all weapons do be +2/1d8. He wants one weapon to be 1d12 brutal 3, because that is more awesome than the rest, so that he can be the big hulking barbarian who laughs at the rogue's puny little dagger. It doesn't matter to him that the rogue might do more damage on average, as long as he can make a big hit every now and then, and make the DM go "you did how much damage??!"

Well, Timmy does have a point. While average damage may be vital in the long run, spike damage has utility in and of itself.

The ability to take out an enemy a round sooner might be worth an overall increase in the number of rounds to take out all enemies.

As a ridiculously simple example, let's look at Spike doing 14 average per turn and hitting 80%, while Timmy does 20 damage per turn and hits 50% of the time. Mathematically, Spikes' DPR is just over 11, while Timmy's is only 10.

However, when fighting enemies with 18 hit points, it is *guaranteed* that Spike will take *at least* two rounds per enemy. OTOH, Timmy has a chance to defeat an enemy on the first round, and in fact killing an enemy each round.

In fact, Timmy's chance of killing at least one enemy in two rounds (75%) is higher than Spike's (60%).

This is the kind of thing that doesn't show up in the mathematical average of DPR.


That's called a "trap" if it doesn't balance out mathematically. Might need even moar damage depending on the specific numbers.

Getting things to balance exactly the same mathematically is basically impossible. It's also mostly irrelevant, as the actual game is not played with average numbers.

If you're within 10%, you're probably good enough for real-life.

The New Bruceski
2010-11-05, 08:10 PM
And I'd have no problem with that--if the damage totals actually equaled out mathematically from the start.

How close do they need to be for you to be satisfied? You can't roll a d7, and you can't have +0.5 to hit. Your own examples of what you would consider reasonable (encounter powers) are exactly the same thing you're complaining about here. They give one weapon 1d6 extra damage and one weapon +2 to hit, and yet that's a trade-off you can accept while the +1/damage die size trade-off isn't.

Rockphed
2010-11-06, 12:08 AM
That's called a "trap" if it doesn't balance out mathematically. Might need even moar damage depending on the specific numbers.

As has been shown numerous times in this thread, it is less the difference between a level 20 3.5 wizard wielding a greatsword and a 3.5 fighter of the same level wielding a greatsword, and more like the difference between a 1d12 weapon and a 2d6 weapon. Yes, 2d6 is on average better but a 1d12 weapon has 3 times the chance of rolling a 12 of a 2d6 weapon, which is attractive to some players.

gurban
2010-11-07, 10:39 PM
Don't mind me, I'll just be over here using my EXECUTION AXE

Exactly. Here is some math let's not forget about in this discussion. When using a Brutal weapon, ALL damage dice are brutal.
Edit, just looked it up. Debatable, wording is iffy, but in my group, all dice rolled are treated as Brutal.
Example, Howling Strike d12+d6+static. Both dice are brutal, so min damage is 6+static.
Execution Axe FTW!
Especially because rolling 4d12 and looking down at 2,1,1,4 is really disappointing.

Shatteredtower
2010-11-08, 01:38 AM
That's called a "trap" if it doesn't balance out mathematically. Might need even moar damage depending on the specific numbers.

The real trap is summed up in Robinson's Observation: "Sometimes comparison kills wonder."

Unless you are playing for the fate of real people, the "math" should take a distant back seat to personal enjoyment. Can I have fun playing someone that hits less? Easily. That extra +1 is no comfort when I can't roll higher than a 4 anyway.

If I'm going to blow every attack roll in the fight anyway, I'd prefer to do it with a charater that's still fun for me to play. Stats be damned when I'm in the mood to play a battle axe wielding gnome barbarian.

Gralamin
2010-11-08, 01:56 AM
Unless you are playing for the fate of real people,

Trust in the heart of the dice? :smalltongue:

Kylarra
2010-11-08, 02:02 AM
Trust in the heart of the dice? :smalltongue:Dungeon Dice Monsters?

Emongnome777
2010-11-08, 10:12 AM
Something kyoryu hinted at that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is factoring how often it matters that you do overall more damage with some weapons compared to others. Without crunching numbers, I don't think it amounts to more than a few points of damage at most per encounter. How many of those increases happen against minions? How many would uselessly take an enemy from -12 instead of -10 or not result in killing an enemy with fewer attacks?

I don't understand why having different weapon average damages is considered a trap. When did WotC ever say that (for instance) all one-handed melee martial weapons do the same damage? I've never seen either an intent to deceive players about relative weapon damage or a failure on their part to make all similar weapons equal in that regard. Why does it even HAVE to be that way?

Yakk
2010-11-08, 10:20 AM
If you took a waraxe, and turned it from a +2 proficiency 1d12 weapon to a +3 proficiency 1d10 weapon, it would probably be better.

Of course, if you are a fighter with a high con, going brutal strike with a waraxe lets you add your str and con to damage, and get a +2 bonus to hit.

The sword equivalent ... doesn't give you that feature, because the sword doesn't have a power with a similar level of kick.

Now this is only a fighter trick, and only extra-strong at low levels, but the point in general stands.

Hammer rhythm is a top-notch feat, and it is only available on +2 proficiency items. Scimitar Dance is a top-notch feat, and is only available on +2 proficiency items. Avengers don't need the +3 proficiency item to be crazy accurate. PHB1 Rangers, with lower damage-per-hit and higher swing-count, care less about accuracy than about more damage-per-hit often.

Heavy Blades are, despite their lower damage die, a pretty strong weapon type due to their high accuracy. But mainly because of that high accuracy. The feat support for high accuracy heavy blades is pretty low.

Light Blades, on the other hand, lack the damage of heavy blades (there are no superior light blades that do more than 1d8 damage -- well, with a multiclass feat, you can hit 2d4 damage), but have stronger feat support than heavy blades.

Blackfang108
2010-11-08, 10:23 AM
Light Blades, on the other hand, lack the damage of heavy blades (there are no superior light blades that do more than 1d8 damage -- well, with a multiclass feat, you can hit 2d4 damage), but have stronger feat support than heavy blades.

Don't forget that Light Blades are usable with Sneak attack.

Sipex
2010-11-08, 01:26 PM
In the end the difference in weapons of the same class (ie: only comparing simple with simple, martial with martial and superior with superior) is so small that it's essentially balanced in the same way all 4e is balanced.

See, the balance isn't perfect because that's impossible but the balance is so close that someone with the mechanically better build/weapon doesn't completely outshine someone who didn't go for that combination. Sure, they'll mathimatically be better but in the end both characters will contribute to battle a fair amount.

Plus, it gives an avenue to power gamers who like being the best. They have some obvious choices which they can use because that is what is fun for them.

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-11-08, 03:49 PM
I'm with Sipex here. I do think, though, that this is the avenue where powergamers just need to sit back and chill. I once played a character who was an Avenger with a quarterstaff.

Munchkins, you may now react. Don't keep reading until you're finished.

I had a powergamer advising me, a couple of them, actually, and he was puzzled by my choice, almost to the point of making fun of it. He couldn't understand why I would pick such a suboptimal weapon, instead of grabbing the Executioner's Axe, especially for a character who would benefit from the High Crit property.

Me? I thought it was cool, because the character was a monk (not in the sense of his class, but his profession...well, and I think that, fluff-wise and power-wise, Avengers make better monks than the 4E monk, but that's just my fluff preferences) with a bit of a dark backstory, out to slay evil. And he had a quarterstaff, because it was cool.

Here's the deal, to you numbercrunchers. I appreciate what you do. I can understand how you enjoy maximizing damage and performing to the greatest capacity that you can within the constraints of the rule system. I think, though, that I speak for all storytellers when I say that we don't work like you do. We don't see things like you do. We don't place value in the same things that you do.

We want to make characters who do cool stuff, who are interesting characters, and who are generally awesome. We don't care if something's a "trap", unless it's an utterly abysmal choice. I personally think it's a little condescending to think that we need to be given mathematically equal choices because we can't do the math. Maybe we can, but we just don't care to. Most likely, we'd rather spend all that time and effort poring over cool-looking options that are roughly on the same power level, figuring out what we like.

We understand that you're concerned we may be stuck with "bad" options, but honestly...we don't think that they're really all that bad. I think we can generally sniff out what's pretty good, and what's a trap, unless there's some crazy little thing that screws us over bigtime. Generally, though, if we want help, we'll ask. :smallcool:

It really isn't all that bad, from our perspective. We're okay. :smallwink:

Though on another note, we don't generally mind getting mechanical bonuses...it's just that we really aren't looking for them, and really don't need them. They're just great little perks.

Mando Knight
2010-11-08, 04:29 PM
I'm with Sipex here. I do think, though, that this is the avenue where powergamers just need to sit back and chill. I once played a character who was an Avenger with a quarterstaff.

Munchkins, you may now react. Don't keep reading until you're finished.

Quarterstaves are actually alright weapons, with somewhat decent feat support. Staff Fighting and Hafted Defense together provide an additional +2 to AC and +1 to Reflex, and if you MC into a martial class, you can get Deceptive Staff to grab CA when you miss, and as a divine class you can get Staff of Knowledge for CA on the first attack.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-08, 06:50 PM
In the end the difference in weapons of the same class (ie: only comparing simple with simple, martial with martial and superior with superior) is so small that it's essentially balanced in the same way all 4e is balanced.
Yes, and also the difference between simple and martial, or martial and superior weapons is pretty minor.

WitchSlayer
2010-11-11, 07:13 AM
Quarterstaves are actually alright weapons, with somewhat decent feat support. Staff Fighting and Hafted Defense together provide an additional +2 to AC and +1 to Reflex, and if you MC into a martial class, you can get Deceptive Staff to grab CA when you miss, and as a divine class you can get Staff of Knowledge for CA on the first attack.

Heck, with 4e's feat trees, even whips can be a decent choice, they get some pretty awesome controllery powers, and would go well with a Warlord.

gurban
2010-11-12, 02:32 AM
Heck, with 4e's feat trees, even whips can be a decent choice, they get some pretty awesome controllery powers, and would go well with a Warlord.

You are right about that. I played a Dragonborn Warlord, with a Waraxe and and a Whip, Champion of Kord Paragon Path. This was for a dream sequence, so he wasn't my usual character. Sure I had to burn two feats, but I ended up using the whip more often because it was so fun.

khylis
2010-11-12, 05:58 AM
People who complain about the stats, haven't done the stats properly.

Do you think that the people who made 4E didn't do the math to make things balanced? Also, balance isn't a concept of completely mathematically equivalent.

So with the giving your bonuses to your characters, and making your characters either a +2 to hit or a 1d6 to damage depending on the weapon - you're falling prey to your own hypothetical fallacy; did you balance out 1d6 and +2 mathematically based on all class/feat dependant variables? have you balanced out all your PC's mechanically, such that they all play at a mathematically equivalent mechanical level? Such that all your characters are truly and statistically balanced?

Remember, D&D is a roleplaying game, if we wanted to play mathematical stats we'd work for insurance companies for fun.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-12, 06:07 AM
Do you think that the people who made 4E didn't do the math to make things balanced? Also, balance isn't a concept of completely mathematically equivalent.
While you're correct that balance isn't the same thing as equivalence, I would like to point out that there have been several sets of errata to 4E to fix the math after it was released. So no, the people who made it either didn't do the math, or didn't do it right.

The most infamous example of this are the Expertise "math fix" feats, but another one is that the skill challenge rules as initially printed make it horrendously unlikely to succeed at one.

khylis
2010-11-12, 06:15 AM
While you're correct that balance isn't the same thing as equivalence, I would like to point out that there have been several sets of errata to 4E to fix the math after it was released. So no, the people who made it either didn't do the math, or didn't do it right.

The most infamous example of this are the Expertise "math fix" feats, but another one is that the skill challenge rules as initially printed make it horrendously unlikely to succeed at one.
Well, they did the math pretty well; not flawless, but hey, if they're willing to fix it, they're doing the math.

Still I find it amusing that he's complaining about 4e as opposed to other systems.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-12, 06:18 AM
Still I find it amusing that he's complaining about 4e as opposed to other systems.
Well, yeah. Find me one system where a dagger does the same damage as a zweihander :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-11-12, 06:27 AM
Some systems (computer game ones?) might have small weapons like daggers, have such a speed bonus, that they are comparable with zweihanders over time despite lower damage per individual blow.

Maybe that's what the OP is getting at- the idea that all weapons should have a reason to be taken, rather than some always being inferior to others?

Kurald Galain
2010-11-12, 06:33 AM
Maybe that's what the OP is getting at- the idea that all weapons should have a reason to be taken, rather than some always being inferior to others?

But, as has been pointed out, pretty much all 4E weapons have such a reason, be it reach, or brutal, or high crit, or accuracy, or feat support. Well, I'm sure there's one or two in there that are mostly unused, but the majority is solid.

hamishspence
2010-11-12, 06:45 AM
True- might be interesting to see how many weapons are "poor right across the board".

Maybe clubs?

khylis
2010-11-12, 07:21 AM
It is unconfirmed, but we think the club is a parasitic organism that attaches itself to NPC's; most susceptible to this parasite is the common human rabble - this particular ailment makes them mutter incoherent threats towards PC's, and makes them unable to wield any other weapon =P

Sipex
2010-11-12, 09:14 AM
Clubs are still useful to monks with feat support.

Also, I just realised that the OP doesn't touch on why proficiency may actually be better over damage.

Sure, damage usually works out better if your main goal is to deal damage but what if it isn't? Being a fighter who's primarily tying up the big enemies while the rogue flanks them? You want to hit simply because that means you mark it. Therefore the more to hit bonuses you get the better. Being a leader class you usually have buffs attached to your melee powers which are the primary reason for using them, damage comes secondary so again, you want to hit instead of deal damage.

It's been a while, I may be off base but it's a valid point nonetheless.

DeltaEmil
2010-11-12, 09:42 AM
But how often does a roll come up where you only hit it narrowly thanks to the higher +3 hit-bonus instead of the normal +2?

I mean, sure, over 1000 attacks, the +3 will in the end win statistically... but the battles in 4th edition don't hopefully involve a thousand attacks in total. You might not even roll so much in your entire life, no matter how may campaigns you start at the same time.

I'd understand if the weapon's to-hit chances were far more varied, like ranging from +1 up to +5 (without magical enhancement and feats), then it would be a lot more worrysome.

Sipex
2010-11-12, 10:02 AM
When looking at a single +1 bonus it's useless, sure. I've always tried to look at the larger picture. It's not about that single +1 bonus, it's about that +1 bonus, stacked with the other +1 bonus, stacked with the +2 bonus, stacked with another +1 bonus...etc.

If you take the approach that "It only gives +1, why would I take it?" you close yourself off from the idea of stacking all those bonuses together.

Heck, our rogue took this idea and ran with it. He only misses on a 5 or lower now against most monsters.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-12, 10:07 AM
If you take the approach that "It only gives +1, why would I take it?" you close yourself off from the idea of stacking all those bonuses together.
But that's the wrong question.

The right question is, what do I give up by taking that +1? For example, by wielding a dagger, you give up the use of Hammer Rhythm, or of a reach weapon. This is a trade-off.

Because all those bonuses do add up, it makes sense that your character can do without one or two of them, trading them for something else. Of course, trading them for nothing is not such a great idea.

Sipex
2010-11-12, 10:10 AM
True, but in this case the difference is usually giving up an average of 2 damage for the extra +1 proficiency, both which have the same stipulation attached.

What are the chances that the extra 2 damage is going to make a difference, really?

When you get into things like feat support or properties then it gets much harder to measure.

Pinnacle
2010-11-12, 10:20 AM
Also, I just realised that the OP doesn't touch on why proficiency may actually be better over damage.
That's because the OP said that high proficiency is always better than high damage dice, even if you're only talking about damage.


Sure, damage usually works out better if your main goal is to deal damage but what if it isn't? Being a fighter who's primarily tying up the big enemies while the rogue flanks them? You want to hit simply because that means you mark it.

Fighters mark whether they hit or miss. It's true of many leader powers, though, and fighter OAs that thwart movement if they hit.


But how often does a roll come up where you only hit it narrowly thanks to the higher +3 hit-bonus instead of the normal +2?
1 in every 20 rolls on average, so about 5% of the time. Assuming that you hit on something lower than a 20 and miss on something higher than a 1.

Sipex
2010-11-12, 10:23 AM
That's because the OP said that high proficiency is always better than high damage dice, even if you're only talking about damage.

Fighters mark whether they hit or miss. It's true of many leader powers, though, and fighter OAs that thwart movement if they hit.

Oh damn, I thought I messed that up. Guess that's what I get for being too lazy to check.

Also, I didn't know that, I'll have to update my fighter as she's been doing it wrong.

WitchSlayer
2010-11-12, 08:51 PM
1 in every 20 rolls on average, so about 5% of the time. Assuming that you hit on something lower than a 20 and miss on something higher than a 1.

But even then it depends on what you're doing doesn't it? I mean damage wise. If that 5% of the time is you using an at-will, then whatever, but if it's you using a daily then it's really aggravating, although if you get a 20 when using a +2 weapon which has, say, high crit, you'll definitely enjoy the impact much more than a 20 with a +3 weapon that has nothing special.