Put Down The Greataxe! Brutal Critical Discussion

[PeteNutButter]

I was looking at building a Half-Orc as I see very little of them in 5e. I think the Mountain Dwarf trivialized them tbh.
Anyways I took a closer look at their racial, same as the barbarian lvl 9, 13, and 17 abilities. Add one extra dmg die per crit so people go, "Yay, Greataxe is viable!" ...but is it really?

I did a ton of math (spreadsheets!) with all the variables and this is what it breaks down to:
The greatsword(or maul) crit gets you an average of 17.5 (5d6), while the axe nets you 19.5(3d12). So 2 more, but how often do you crit? Base is 5%, but that's not fair math to the axe because you dont hit the other 95% of the time. A fair assessment is that the a party fighter-type would hit ~60% of the time, which greatly varies with level and encounter. (The higher your hit chance, the better the Sword gets.) So for the sword you deal 7 dmg 11/12 times, and 17.5 1/12 average= 7.88. For the Axe you deal 6.5 11/12 times and 17.5 1/12 times average = 7.58.

With adv (reckless attack likely) you hit more so the math is like 85% hit, 10% crit. So sword gets you 15/17 7, 2/17 17.5 average = 8.23. Axe gets 6.5 15/17 times, and 19.5 2/17 times average= 8.03. It got WORSE for the greataxe. Only with the two instance of brutal crit (ie lvl 13 barb, or 9 barb and half orc) AND advantage or champion lvl 3 does it actually catch up. And catch up in a very inconsistent way, since you can't choose to crit when you need to.

Basic rule of thumb is if you like math don't use a greataxe unless you have 3 things that make you better at critting, OR you just like the image. I hate to make players suffer for image so as a DM I might houserule some kind of buff to Half-Orcs or the greataxe.

[JNAProductions]

Easy buff for the Greataxe-it does 2d6 damage.

Bam, you have your axe-wielding Barbarian, but still optimal.

Alternatively, offer as a feat or class feature Damage Advantage-roll 2d12b1 for damage instead of 1d12, and do the same for crits. Maybe make a Primal Path based around the Greataxe and crits?

[PeteNutButter]

Also forget to mention that the fighting style is in favor of the Greatsword as well...

[TrinculoLives]

I'm seeing some very negligible differences in damage output.

What's the big deal exactly? Both are "viable". The Half-orc Barbarian in my group dishes out more damage than anyone else.

[PeteNutButter]

I'm seeing some very negligible differences in damage output.

What's the big deal exactly? Both are "viable". The Half-orc Barbarian in my group dishes out more damage than anyone else.

It's not a big deal. It's just its not working as intended. This is with a feature designed to work better with greataxe, but ultimately just creates a trap to trick players into taking a sub-optimal(albeit barely) choice. I didn't show the math with the fighting style factored in. It gets considerably worse for the greataxe when you can reroll 1s and 2s.

[Foxhound438]

paladins laugh at the concept of babarians' "brutal" crits

[Foxhound438]

It's not a big deal. It's just its not working as intended. This is with a feature designed to work better with greataxe, but ultimately just creates a trap to trick players into taking a sub-optimal(albeit barely) choice. I didn't show the math with the fighting style factored in. It gets considerably worse for the greataxe when you can reroll 1s and 2s.

4x4.167 =16.667 vs 3x 7.333 = 22 for crits

2x4.167 = 8.333 vs 7.333 for non-crits. The crits are good but you really do need champion 3 to make it work.

[georgie_leech]

The point of the great axe isn't to be perfectly balanced with the Greatsword, but to reflect the wild, swingy fighting style that the term Barbarian evokes. Thus, a weapon with huge swings in effectiveness, and the Brutal Critical reinforces that theme. They're close enough in damage for it to not be that big of a deal anyway.

[PeteNutButter]

The point of the great axe isn't to be perfectly balanced with the Greatsword, but to reflect the wild, swingy fighting style that the term Barbarian evokes. Thus, a weapon with huge swings in effectiveness, and the Brutal Critical reinforces that theme. They're close enough in damage for it to not be that big of a deal anyway.

Is that an attitude that is really representative of the archetype or is an attitude put into us from multiple editions of D&D having greataxe be a d12? I mean if I picture a barbarian swinging, I think I'd imagine him just doing a lot of damage. Like always. I'd say a wild fighting style is more indicative of a low AC. (Rage lowered AC in previous editions.)

[MaxWilson]

Basic rule of thumb is if you like math don't use a greataxe unless you have 3 things that make you better at critting, OR you just like the image. I hate to make players suffer for image so as a DM I might houserule some kind of buff to Half-Orcs or the greataxe.

The Savage Attacks thing is just a side benefit. The main perks of being a half-orc are (1) Bonus to Str and Con, (2) Relentless Endurance so that when your DM hits the whole party with a 12d10 AoE attack at 8th level, you're the only one guaranteed to not drop to 0 HP.

Half-orcs are less valuable at tables where the DM takes it easy on you, but my first 5E experience was with a DM who would drop 70 HP permanent necrotic damage (DC 22 Con save for half damage, and DC 22 Con save to have the damage not be permanent), and so I have a definite fondness for half-orc Relentless Endurance and similar features (e.g. Lucky).

Mountain Dwarves have 1 more point of Con (usually irrelevant), slower movement, some random weapon proficiencies, medium armor, and resistance to poison. If you're not expecting to face a lot of poison the half-orc is simply better than the mountain dwarf for fighter types who would have medium+ armor anyway.

[PeteNutButter]

The Savage Attacks thing is just a side benefit. The main perks of being a half-orc are (1) Bonus to Str and Con, (2) Relentless Endurance so that when your DM hits the whole party with a 12d10 AoE attack at 8th level, you're the only one guaranteed to not drop to 0 HP.

Half-orcs are less valuable at tables where the DM takes it easy on you, but my first 5E experience was with a DM who would drop 70 HP permanent necrotic damage (DC 22 Con save for half damage, and DC 22 Con save to have the damage not be permanent), and so I have a definite fondness for half-orc Relentless Endurance and similar features (e.g. Lucky).

That is a nice feature. Effects like you described above are pretty much absent from the monster manual. And if something is going to kill the entire party but me in one shot, its probably supposed to kill the entire party. Does it every appear to backfire? Such that sitting at 1 hp is a dangerous place to be in 5e, since getting hit for -your hp is instant death... probably not a concern past low to mid lvl.


Mountain Dwarves have 1 more point of Con (usually irrelevant), slower movement, some random weapon proficiencies, medium armor, and resistance to poison. If you're not expecting to face a lot of poison the half-orc is simply better than the mountain dwarf for fighter types who would have medium+ armor anyway.

Can't trivialize that +1 con. Starting with a 17 in both str and con gives two 18s in two core stats at lvl 4.

[MaxWilson]

That is a nice feature. Effects like you described above are pretty much absent from the monster manual. And if something is going to kill the entire party but me in one shot, its probably supposed to kill the entire party. Does it every appear to backfire? Such that sitting at 1 hp is a dangerous place to be in 5e, since getting hit for -your hp is instant death... probably not a concern past low to mid lvl.

Does it backfire? No, how could not being unconscious ever backfire? Even if you fall down and pretend to be dead or dying, at least you aren't really.

Effects like that DM used (ridiculously strong permanent HP drain which, BTW, goes through walls and affects PCs who are not even in the same room) are not in the DMG, true, but I've also seen a 3rd level half-orc take a blast of Adult Red Dragon fire to the face and survive it. He came within 3 HP of being insta-killed, but since he wasn't insta-killed, Relentless Endurance kicked in and he was not only alive but still on his feet. That impressed the Red Dragon enough that it decided he was worthy to negotiate with it.


Can't trivialize that +1 con. Starting with a 17 in both str and con gives two 18s in two core stats at lvl 4.

It's true that it's not completely trivial, but there's still an opportunity cost, and I don't find that +1 Con in any way impressive compared to what you lose. Even if you happen to roll two odd stats or use point buy for 15/15, a half-orc would be 17/16 at first level, and then at 4th level could take Heavy Armor Master for 18/16. You wind up with a 16 Con instead of 18, but you have damage resistance 3 to non-magical attacks and Relentless Endurance, whiich IMO is a better overall package than 18/18. Instead of just looking at the numbers you have to look at what they mean in play.

[JNAProductions]

It's true that it's not completely trivial, but there's still an opportunity cost, and I don't find that +1 Con in any way impressive compared to what you lose. Even if you happen to roll two odd stats or use point buy for 15/15, a half-orc would be 17/16 at first level, and then at 4th level could take Heavy Armor Master for 18/16. You wind up with a 16 Con instead of 18, but you have damage resistance 3 to non-magical attacks and Relentless Endurance, whiich IMO is a better overall package than 18/18. Instead of just looking at the numbers you have to look at what they mean in play.

Wasn't this about Barbarians? Because Barbarians can't take HAM at level 4.

[MaxWilson]

Wasn't this about Barbarians? Because Barbarians can't take HAM at level 4.

Was it? I was talking about fighter-type half-orcs in general. I thought the claim had been made that dwarves obsolete half-orcs in a general sense. I agree that the extra +1 to Con eventually becomes somewhat more significant for a barbarian because of Unarmored Defense.

Though really a Barbarian has no business doing anything with his level 4 ASI that doesn't involve either Polearm Master or GWM.

[Cybren]

On the subject of relentless endurance: its one of the coolest abilities in the game. There's a lot of situations in deadly encounters where both sides are close to finishing each other off and having +1 turn of HP after you drop is invaluable. In a recent encounter while we were all at level 5 vs some kind of water elemental dragon our monk got hit with a building (literally), dropped to 1 from the racial ability, and on her turn came back to deal 40+ damage in one turn (the wizard kill-stole with a middling damage roll on a cantrip, too, the jerk)

[bid]

Was it? I was talking about fighter-type half-orcs in general.
This is supposed to be about brutal critical and how a mace is still better than a greataxe. But it did deviate into GWF style and champions.


With +2 damage on crit but -0.5 damage on hit, you need 4:1 hit/crit ratio or 16+ to balance it out. Advantage is a minor help to the greataxe. Crit-fishing with champion drops it to 50% hit (11+). GWF champion changes those to +7/6 vs -1, or 7:6 hit/crit aka 15+ clearly for mace.

You need brutal critical 2 to get somewhere with greataxe (8:1 or 12+). GWF champion is ok (+13/3 vs -1 = 13:3 ~ 8:2 or 11+). But level 16 is a little late for crit-fishing.

[xanderh]

The math in the op is off. Both the half-orc and barbarian brutal critical give one extra die each. The greatsword 5d6 is 3 additional dice, while the greataxe 3d12 is only two extra dice. Not really a fair contest.

[Foxhound438]

The math in the op is off. Both the half-orc and barbarian brutal critical give one extra die each. The greatsword 5d6 is 3 additional dice, while the greataxe 3d12 is only two extra dice. Not really a fair contest.

base crit rerolls all the attack's dice, and brutal gives one more. so that's just how it is, sorry. op's math is on point.

[georgie_leech]

Is that an attitude that is really representative of the archetype or is an attitude put into us from multiple editions of D&D having greataxe be a d12? I mean if I picture a barbarian swinging, I think I'd imagine him just doing a lot of damage. Like always. I'd say a wild fighting style is more indicative of a low AC. (Rage lowered AC in previous editions.)

That is part of it yes, which is why Relentless Attack makes you grant Advantage to attackers. But the point is more that since their incarnation, the Barbarians have been rolling the biggest die except for the d20. Their HD and signature weapon both used the d12, and while the average die result is slightly in favor of 2d6 in terms of damage over time, Barbarians get their exciting max damage rolls more often than a Greatsword. In the earlier editions, stats and other static bonuses generally contributed less to damage than they do now, unless you rolled very well at character creation. Thus, the choice was between steady output over big spikes, and the latter was more in keeping with Barbarian archetype.

In other words, yeah, the Greatsword has better average damage, but the difference is small enough that I think the designers valued the different feel of 1d12 vs 2d6 more, and I happen to agree.

[bid]

The math in the op is off. Both the half-orc and barbarian brutal critical give one extra die each. The greatsword 5d6 is 3 additional dice, while the greataxe 3d12 is only two extra dice. Not really a fair contest.
Base damage for a crit is 4d6 or 2d12. Brutal critical adds that 5th or 3rd dice.

Did you expect to see both extra dice, half-orc and barbarian?
It's equivalent to the brutal critical 2 I showed above: "(8:1 or 12+). GWF champion is ok (+13/3 vs -1 = 13:3 ~ 8:2 or 11+)." And that's at level 12 for crit-fishing.

[mgshamster]

What assumptions are being made with this math and why wasn't the standard DPR calculation used?

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = damage per hit that isn't multiplied on a crit. Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

It's easily modified for 5e and it provides and excellent reference for a standard damage per round.

[bid]

What assumptions are being made with this math and why wasn't the standard DPR calculation used?
Because DPR assumes a certain hit, which is the unknown here. We're comparing the gain in crit damage to the loss in hit damage.

But if you really want, let's do it for brutal2 (or savage+brutal1):
- mace = h(7+s) + .05*4*3.5
- greataxe = h(6.5+s) + .05*3*6.5
- difference = 0.5h - .275
~ h = .55

[Socratov]

I was looking at building a Half-Orc as I see very little of them in 5e. I think the Mountain Dwarf trivialized them tbh.
Anyways I took a closer look at their racial, same as the barbarian lvl 9, 13, and 17 abilities. Add one extra dmg die per crit so people go, "Yay, Greataxe is viable!" ...but is it really?

I did a ton of math (spreadsheets!) with all the variables and this is what it breaks down to:
The greatsword(or maul) crit gets you an average of 17.5 (5d6), while the axe nets you 19.5(3d12). So 2 more, but how often do you crit? Base is 5%, but that's not fair math to the axe because you dont hit the other 95% of the time. A fair assessment is that the a party fighter-type would hit ~60% of the time, which greatly varies with level and encounter. (The higher your hit chance, the better the Sword gets.) So for the sword you deal 7 dmg 11/12 times, and 17.5 1/12 average= 7.88. For the Axe you deal 6.5 11/12 times and 17.5 1/12 times average = 7.58.

With adv (reckless attack likely) you hit more so the math is like 85% hit, 10% crit. So sword gets you 15/17 7, 2/17 17.5 average = 8.23. Axe gets 6.5 15/17 times, and 19.5 2/17 times average= 8.03. It got WORSE for the greataxe. Only with the two instance of brutal crit (ie lvl 13 barb, or 9 barb and half orc) AND advantage or champion lvl 3 does it actually catch up. And catch up in a very inconsistent way, since you can't choose to crit when you need to.

Basic rule of thumb is if you like math don't use a greataxe unless you have 3 things that make you better at critting, OR you just like the image. I hate to make players suffer for image so as a DM I might houserule some kind of buff to Half-Orcs or the greataxe.

please note that at lvl 9 a greatsword crit is 2d6+2d6 (crit double) +1d6 brutal critical. avg of 17,5
for a greataxe that would make: 1d12 +1d12 (crit) +1d12 crit. avg of 19,5. So yeah, brutal critical does make (in the case of crits) the greataxe viable over the greatsword.
No crits the greatsword is on average up 0,5 dmg. In the case of 5% crtit chance in that makes the following expected value:

halfork < lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 9

0.95 * 7 + 0.05 * 17.5 = 6.65 + 0.875 = 7.525
0.95 * 6.5 + 0.05 * 19.5 = 6.175 + 0.975 = 7.150

So not yet, but let's add another die:

halfork lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 13

7.525 + 0.05 * 3.5 = 7.525 + 0.175 = 7.7
7.150 + 0.05 * 6.5 = 7.150 + 0.325 = 7.475

We are getting closer, so we add one more die:

halfork lvl 13or !halfork lvl 17

7.700 + 0.175 = 7.875
7.475 + 0.325 = 7.800

we are talking almost no distinction now. Let's add one more for good measure:

halfork lvl 17

7.875 + 0.175 = 8.050
7.800 + 0.325 = 8.125

So a halfork as a lvl 17 barbarian can pull ahead with a greataxe. In this case I'd argue that if you want to reward greataxe users allow the great weapons (greatsword, greataxe and dire maul) to crit on 19 AND 20 instead of only on 20. This allows for a lower steady damage output, but to shine on crits (as opposed to dual wielders etc.)

In the game this is easy to justify as a big hunk of metal, if it hits, it hits you hard and will not only slice or do impact damage, it will utterly wreck you.

[Hairfish]

You might want to change hit chance to a variable as previously suggested and calculate where the break-even points are for both normal and advantage attacks. Even at low levels, a half-orc's Savage Attacks can give greataxe superior average damage over greatsword if the to-hit roll needed is high, such as when using Reckless Attack and GWM's -5/+10. The break-even point for a level 1 half-orc without the great weapon fighting style is exactly 16 (19.something with) and it only decreases from there.

Your hypothesis also assumes that a minor boost in average damage is a primary concern for the player, instead of (for example) spike damage.

[SharkForce]

pretty sure you're also forgetting reckless attacks.

barbarians don't (or at least shouldn't) have a 5% chance to crit. they should have a 9.75% chance to crit.

[PeteNutButter]

Thanks everyone for taking my math and running it. What I showed was a simplified example or two, a snapshot of couple likely examples. There are of course variations, as I said I did it out in excel.

A few things to note are:
Advantage such as from reckless attack actually helps the sword/maul more because, yes it does increase your crit chance, but it also significantly decreases the chance that you'll miss at all, thus bringing that .5 increase into play more. *USUALLY

The DPR calculations are inherently flawed as they assume a hit, yet give you 5% chance to crit. That's not math. You don't hit 95% of the time. Even if you have +100 to hit you still miss with a 1. Reality varies greatly but I chose around 60% hit chance as a basline from experience. Using GWM -5 to hit may make the math better for a greataxe though as hitting less often means crits are a greater percentage of your hits. Doing the math the way I did, actually benefits the greataxe.

My conclusions are:
A Champion fighter should stick with a sword/maul. A half-orc champion fighter might be ok with an axe if he has a low chance of hitting. Barbarians generally should use greatswords/mauls for most of their play. A multiclassed barb/champion half-orc is ok with a greataxe but doesn't really benefit from it until roughly his second barb crit boost.

If I were to home-brew a rule change I'd recommend using the 3.5e rule of letting greataxes themselves do triple damage on crits. This should balance the weapons more and let a crit farming build compare to something like a Battlemaster or regular barbarian. NOTE: Not all axes since the other weapons are all the same, d8 for d8 same crit etc. Just Greataxes.

[Cybren]

The design goal doesn't need to be at all times mathematically superior for great axes with a barbarian. It's a perfectly reasonable position for the designer to want to create particular emotional events- woah we did huge damage on a crit!!!!, even if over the long term on average you're a few points of damage behind. The difference isn't really relevant, though it is true it's better, purely mathematically

[SharkForce]

advantage does reduce chance to miss, bit it shouldn't be making you hit nearly twice as often, which is the crit rate increase advantage gives...

[PeteNutButter]

The design goal doesn't need to be at all times mathematically superior for great axes with a barbarian. It's a perfectly reasonable position for the designer to want to create particular emotional events- woah we did huge damage on a crit!!!!, even if over the long term on average you're a few points of damage behind. The difference isn't really relevant, though it is true it's better, purely mathematically

This is true, but I am talking about balance. I shouldn't be punished for a flavor choice if I want to use an axe. In fact my solution was to award the players who enjoy that style of play more by just adding an extra d12 to greataxe crits. The disparity between min/maxers and those that don't is bad enough without having sub-par options disguised as good ones. This is the equivolent of the party paladin saying, "Instead of a longsword I want to use a flail, but they aren't in the book." to which the DM responds, "It's ok, here is your d6 for damage." It's one less damage! Flails are cool, so he should just deal with it?

[mgshamster]

advantage does reduce chance to miss, bit it shouldn't be making you hit nearly twice as often, which is the crit rate increase advantage gives...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475619-The-Variable-Advantage-of-Advantage

There are the statistics for advantage and disadvantage. :)

[PeteNutButter]

advantage does reduce chance to miss, bit it shouldn't be making you hit nearly twice as often, which is the crit rate increase advantage gives...

For starters adv doesn't quite double crit chance, due to the occasions when you could crit on both dice.

No adv doesn't double your chance to hit. It roughly increases by 25% at 50%, so that's basically 1 more time of crit damage to 5 more times of normal damage. Depending on your chances to hit already (and crit), this tends to swing in the sword's favor. (5 times .5 (or 1 w fighting style) for normal hits, or 2 more damage on a crit) Check the example I included in the OP. Both 5 and 2.5 > 2.

So for advantage to help the axe I guess you'd need two instances of extra crit dice(or a low hit chance)? And if you have the fighting style its a wash adding 5 to both totals. Correct me if I'm wrong, just doing this in my head right quick.

[Socratov]

pretty sure you're also forgetting reckless attacks.

barbarians don't (or at least shouldn't) have a 5% chance to crit. they should have a 9.75% chance to crit.

Please note that I wasn't talking about attacks and hitting, I was talking about rolling a damage roll and your chance to crit. In this case you get to roll a set of dice resulting from a successful attackroll. This does remind me that my math is off because I did not account for critical misses (which will help the case for a greataxe a bit, but about that later), owever, for a dmage roll it doesn't matter how many to hit dice you roll, all that matters is that for certain results on a d20 you get certain amounts of damage dice to roll. That is what matters.

Now for my revised math, now accounting for a natural one! (gasp, ooh, aaah)

I have left out the 0.05 * 0 damage for a guaranteed miss. and thus reduced the hit/not crit numbers to 0.90 instead of the previous 0.95. Let's see what happens.

halfork < lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 9

0.90 * 7 + 0.05 * 17.5 = 6.3 + 0.875 = 7.175
0.90 * 6.5 + 0.05 * 19.5 = 5.850 + 0.975 = 6.825

So not yet, but let's add another die:

halfork lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 13

7.175 + 0.05 * 3.5 = 7.125 + 0.175 = 7.3
6.825 + 0.05 * 6.5 = 6.825 + 0.325 = 7.150

We are getting closer, so we add one more die:

halfork lvl 13 or !halfork lvl 17

7.300 + 0.175 = 7.475
7.150 + 0.325 = 7.475

we are talking equal now. Let's add one more for good measure:

halfork lvl 17

7.475 + 0.175 = 7.650
7.475 + 0.325 = 7.800

These numbers, (I'll be more clear now in my explanation) do not represent DPR. Nor do they represent average damage on an attack since I have not taken misschance into account or (dis)advantage. All these numbers represent are what on average your expected damage will be when using a certain weapon with a certain classfeature (brütal critical) and/or a racial feature (half ork's savage critical).

If you want to see more influences I'll need to construct a matrix with increasing axises to account for every possibility (like strength score and +X weapons, advantage, enemy AC)

[SharkForce]

For starters adv doesn't quite double crit chance, due to the occasions when you could crit on both dice.

No adv doesn't double your chance to hit. It roughly increases by 25% at 50%, so that's basically 1 more time of crit damage to 5 more times of normal damage. Depending on your chances to hit already (and crit), this tends to swing in the sword's favor. (5 times .5 (or 1 w fighting style) for normal hits, or 2 more damage on a crit) Check the example I included in the OP. Both 5 and 2.5 > 2.

So for advantage to help the axe I guess you'd need two instances of extra crit dice(or a low hit chance)? And if you have the fighting style its a wash adding 5 to both totals. Correct me if I'm wrong, just doing this in my head right quick.

i know it doesn't double crit chance. that's why i specifically mentioned 9.75% vs 5%, and described it as *nearly* doubling crit chance.

and the examples being described are situations where you do have more than one bonus die on a crit.

but if we (nearly) double the increase to average DPR from crit damage, and only add (roughly) a 50% increase to the regular hit's average DPR contribution, that helps the weapon that crits harder *more* than it helps the weapon that hits harder on regular hits. meaning that you should account for it in the math to determine which weapon is mathematically superior.

[PeteNutButter]

i know it doesn't double crit chance. that's why i specifically mentioned 9.75% vs 5%, and described it as *nearly* doubling crit chance.

and the examples being described are situations where you do have more than one bonus die on a crit.

but if we (nearly) double the increase to average DPR from crit damage, and only add (roughly) a 50% increase to the regular hit's average DPR contribution, that helps the weapon that crits harder *more* than it helps the weapon that hits harder on regular hits. meaning that you should account for it in the math to determine which weapon is mathematically superior.

Yes, like I said. It's variable. I was going off primarily on what I felt was most likely situations.

[PeteNutButter]

Please note that I wasn't talking about attacks and hitting, I was talking about rolling a damage roll and your chance to crit. In this case you get to roll a set of dice resulting from a successful attackroll. This does remind me that my math is off because I did not account for critical misses (which will help the case for a greataxe a bit, but about that later), owever, for a dmage roll it doesn't matter how many to hit dice you roll, all that matters is that for certain results on a d20 you get certain amounts of damage dice to roll. That is what matters.

Now for my revised math, now accounting for a natural one! (gasp, ooh, aaah)

I have left out the 0.05 * 0 damage for a guaranteed miss. and thus reduced the hit/not crit numbers to 0.90 instead of the previous 0.95. Let's see what happens.

halfork < lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 9

0.90 * 7 + 0.05 * 17.5 = 6.3 + 0.875 = 7.175
0.90 * 6.5 + 0.05 * 19.5 = 5.850 + 0.975 = 6.825

So not yet, but let's add another die:

halfork lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 13

7.175 + 0.05 * 3.5 = 7.125 + 0.175 = 7.3
6.825 + 0.05 * 6.5 = 6.825 + 0.325 = 7.150

We are getting closer, so we add one more die:

halfork lvl 13 or !halfork lvl 17

7.300 + 0.175 = 7.475
7.150 + 0.325 = 7.475

we are talking equal now. Let's add one more for good measure:

halfork lvl 17

7.475 + 0.175 = 7.650
7.475 + 0.325 = 7.800

These numbers, (I'll be more clear now in my explanation) do not represent DPR. Nor do they represent average damage on an attack since I have not taken misschance into account or (dis)advantage. All these numbers represent are what on average your expected damage will be when using a certain weapon with a certain classfeature (brütal critical) and/or a racial feature (half ork's savage critical).

If you want to see more influences I'll need to construct a matrix with increasing axises to account for every possibility (like strength score and +X weapons, advantage, enemy AC)

I respect your math, but I am telling you it's misleading. No one is hitting 95% of the time, otherwise why even have AC in the game. If you are always hitting on a 2 or better either you or the DM is doing something wrong. If you take a more realistic number like I did in my example say ~65%, or an 8+ on the d20, it better represents actual gameplay.

We don't need to put numbers in a vacuum. We know a 9th lvl barb should have between +8 and +12 to hit and his enemies will have AC usually in the mid to high teens. Meaning he'll hit more than half or maybe a little less if he takes the -5 to hit +10 dmg.

[Socratov]

[/SPOILER]

I respect your math, but I am telling you it's misleading. No one is hitting 95% of the time, otherwise why even have AC in the game. If you are always hitting on a 2 or better either you or the DM is doing something wrong. If you take a more realistic number like I did in my example say ~65%, or an 8+ on the d20, it better represents actual gameplay.

We don't need to put numbers in a vacuum. We know a 9th lvl barb should have between +8 and +12 to hit and his enemies will have AC usually in the mid to high teens. Meaning he'll hit more than half or maybe a little less if he takes the -5 to hit +10 dmg.

A +9 to hit makes someone hit on a 2 on a large bear. that is a +5 attribute and +3 proficiency, or any combination in between (excluding magic weapon or effects like bless). (not appropriate, but what the hey, put enough bears there and it will be)

And sure, when AC rises, the crit component will become more influential in expected value for damage as the non crit component will diminish.

[PeteNutButter]

A +9 to hit makes someone hit on a 2 on a large bear. that is a +5 attribute and +3 proficiency, or any combination in between (excluding magic weapon or effects like bless). (not appropriate, but what the hey, put enough bears there and it will be)

Bears are fun, but even so the math is the players advantage to take the -5 to hit. As I said either the DM or the PLAYER is doing something wrong if you are hitting on a 2.

[Hairfish]

For a half-orc attacking with GWM bonus damage and advantage, greataxe's average damage is superior to greatsword's when the pre-GWM chance to hit (per d20) is 50% or less.

Without advantage, they break even right at 50%, with greatsword favoring easier targets and greataxe favoring harder targets.

The great weapon style available to fighters and pallys skews those numbers in favor of greatsword, while 9+ levels of barb skews in favor of the greataxe.

In the event of a 3 Champion/9 Barbarian with GW style, greataxe overwhelms greatsword for all but the very easiest non-advantage targets. With advantage is entirely in favor of greataxe.

[PeteNutButter]

For a half-orc attacking with GWM bonus damage and advantage, greataxe's average damage is superior to greatsword's when the pre-GWM chance to hit (per d20) is 50% or less.

Without advantage, they break even right at 50%, with greatsword favoring easier targets and greataxe favoring harder targets.

The great weapon style available to fighters and pallys skews those numbers in favor of greatsword, while 9+ levels of barb skews in favor of the greataxe.

In the event of a 3 Champion/9 Barbarian with GW style, greataxe overwhelms greatsword for all but the very easiest non-advantage targets. With advantage is entirely in favor of greataxe.

This ^ +1 internets.