Should weapons with no special abilities and low crits deal higher base damage?

[heavyfuel]

Hey!

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that hardly anyone ever picks up, say, a Longsword. It's hard to justify a weapon with d8 19-20 when a Scimitar deals an average of 1 fewer point of damage, but has a better crit multiplier.

The same can be said for a lot of weapons. There's a reason EWP:Bastard Sword is considered such a huge trap.

So, what if these weapons dealt more base damage. Increase the dice by one size.

Punching Daggers deal d6, Shortswords now hit for d8, and Longswords, Warhammers, and Battleaxes all hit for d10. Bastard swords no longer exist (you can still write "Bastard sword, d10+X, 19-20 x2" on you sheet for all I care).

Would this make these weapons worth considering?

Thanks!

[NigelWalmsley]

Possibly. But it seems kinda pointless, because you're not going to get meaningful weapon diversity this way. At best, you'll just move the title of "best weapon" from where it is now to somewhere else. But there will still be a best weapon, and the others still won't be worth taking.

[CharonsHelper]

At lower levels the d8 from the longsword IS better than the d6/18-20 from the scimitar. And in 3.5 there is a LOT which is immune to critical hits, so crit-fishing is very foe dependent. In Pathfinder crits matter more due to so little being immune (can't think of anything off-hand outside of elementals and slimes), but even then it's not huge.

Yeah, at high levels bigger crit weapons are better since the 1 base damage is so small, but I think that high level D&D has bigger balance issues to deal with.

[heavyfuel]

Possibly. But it seems kinda pointless, because you're not going to get meaningful weapon diversity this way. At best, you'll just move the title of "best weapon" from where it is now to somewhere else. But there will still be a best weapon, and the others still won't be worth taking.

I don't think a longswrd with d10 will make it much better than a scimitar, but it will make people not into crit-fishing feel less gimped for going for it.


At lower levels the d8 from the longsword IS better than the d6/18-20 from the scimitar. And in 3.5 there is a LOT which is immune to critical hits, so crit-fishing is very foe dependent. In Pathfinder crits matter more due to so little being immune (can't think of anything off-hand outside of elementals and slimes), but even then it's not huge.

Yeah, at high levels bigger crit weapons are better since the 1 base damage is so small, but I think that high level D&D has bigger balance issues to deal with.

This game is PF, should've specified.

And you're right that in the lower levels the longsword is better than the scimitar, but it doesn't stay as such for very long at all. It's about equal when you have

Fair point about high-level balance, though.

[Falontani]

Medium sized

Simple weapons:
Light: 1d6
Regular: 1d8
2h: 1d10
If it has better than 20x2 then the damage should decrease, and if it has special properties like reach, tripping, etc then you can lower the damage still.

Martial
Light: 1d8
Regular: 1d10
2h: 2d8
This means that a long sword makes sense at 1d8 19-20x2. But the greatclub should be dealing 2d8 instead of 1d10.

Exotic
All exotic weapons should have something special. Either a higher than normal crit range, higher multiplier, or something that sets them apart. A bastard sword doing 1d10 19-20x2 is the bare minimum here. It is technically stronger than a martial weapon.
But then we have things like the Kama which is 1d6 20x2 exotic and can trip. This is where a martial weapon should be balanced. The whip is subpar, and the spiked chain is way more powerful than it should be (compared to where others are).

The more things the weapon has past the above, the more powerful it is rated, while the fewer things the weapon has then the above the more it relies on things outside the weapon to shine. You can change the dice up as long as you stick close to the same average damages. So if we follow all of this, an exotic weapon could have: 2h 3d8 20x2 and no special properties and technically be in line with what an exotic weapon can do. And we see that a gold/platinum weapon is considered a "heavy" weapon, increases the size category of the weapon, and makes it exotic. So a Heavy Greatclub should do that. And be balanced, which I think is ok.


The above is specifically for melee weapons as ranged weapons have completely different standards.

[Saintheart]

I have a competing suggestion: that for weapons with no special abilities and low crits, let keen and Improved Critical stack.

It's not original to me. It's Sean K. Reynolds' argument (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html) and observes the very reason 3.0 allowed the features to stack is because the lower-damage weapons simply are not worth taking without them. He went as far as providing a statistical analysis (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keen_medium.html) for the difference between a longsword and a rapier. Two points to remember on that analysis:

- The numbers are uniformly off by 5% because Sean forgot that natural 1s are always a miss, but the fact they're all off by the same degree means the analysis still holds.
- Sean forgot you don't get to add x1.5 STR bonus to damage with a rapier because it's a light weapon, but the scimitar has the same damage dice and is a one-hander, and so the analysis still holds once more.

And frankly, given 3.5 eventually gave us the Jovar and the Great Falchion with 2d6 and 1d12 damage dice and an 18-20 threat range, you're likely not upsetting some great grand god of balance by monkeying with the damage dice of light or even one-handed weapons.

[Arkain]

- Sean forgot you don't get to add x1.5 STR bonus to damage with a rapier because it's a light weapon, but the scimitar has the same damage dice and is a one-hander, and so the analysis still holds once more.


Nitpicking, but oddly enough, rapiers aren't light weapons at all in 3.X and PF1. The rapier has special rules that forbid two-handing and allow for using Weapon Finesse. Which has kinda weird implications, such as that RAW you can't use Piranha Strike with a rapier in Pathfinder, but let's not go there...

That said, the analysis seems interesting.

[Saintheart]

Nitpicking, but oddly enough, rapiers aren't light weapons at all in 3.X and PF1. The rapier has special rules that forbid two-handing and allow for using Weapon Finesse.

Nope, you're entirely right. I keep forgetting the rapier has that rule precisely because one-handed weapons are normally not eligible for Weapon Finesse in particular. Although I wouldn't interpret its rules on STR bonus as forbidding its use two-handed, I read it just as that you don't get x1.5 STR bonus with it if you do.

[Rynjin]

I kinda get what you mean, but you do realize that IS how the current weapon system already works, yes? You're just angling for the numbers to get even bigger.

A longsword deals a d8, 19-20/x2 as a 1h weapon, the Scimitar instead deals a d6, 18-20/x2. That is by design. You can argue that +1 average damage is way weaker than +1 crit ratio (and you'd be right), but that is the basic way weapons already work within the same proficiency tier.

Still I'd argue that even if you bump the dice up as you propose, a+2 average damage is STILL way weaker than +1 crit ratio...so why bother? It's a pretty nothing houserule that isn't going to change anything in the grand scheme. There's a reason one of the best weapons in the game for crit fishing has a d4 damage die and nobody cares: crits are just that good.

[Arkain]

Nope, you're entirely right. I keep forgetting the rapier has that rule precisely because one-handed weapons are normally not eligible for Weapon Finesse in particular. Although I wouldn't interpret its rules on STR bonus as forbidding its use two-handed, I read it just as that you don't get x1.5 STR bonus with it if you do.

Huh, hadn't considered that interpretation, but you're right, you could also read it as "two-handed, but no 1.5 STR".

[InvisibleBison]

How is a scimitar better than a longsword? A scimitar deals an average of (3.5 * .85) + (7 * .15) = 4.025 damage, while a longsword deals an average of (4.5 * .9) + (9 * .1) = 4.95 damage. What am I missing something, or is my math wrong?

[CharonsHelper]

How is a scimitar better than a longsword? A scimitar deals an average of (3.5 * .85) + (7 * .15) = 4.025 damage, while a longsword deals an average of (4.5 * .9) + (9 * .1) = 4.95 damage. What am I missing something, or is my math wrong?

You're forgetting that the scimitar's improved critical range also multiplies all modifiers (with a few exceptions such as sneak attack).

So at level 1 if 18 STR wielding them one-handed. So dice + 4 damage.

Scimitar: 7.5*1.15 = 8.625

Longsword: 8.5*1.1= 9.35

As I said above, the longsword is better at low levels. But the scimitar gets better around level 8-9ish.

However, consider a level 9 Pathfinder fighter with a +3 sword, 24 STR, Weapon Training +4, Weapon Specialization (+2 damage), Power Attack for +6, and with a +2 from their bard buddy's Inspire Courage. That's a total of dice +17 damage modifier.

Scimitar: 27.5*1.15= 31.625 damage

Longsword: 28.5*1.1= 31.35 damage

As you increase the damage modifier further and/or add the Improved Critical feat, the scimitar will get much better. Though, as I said above, by around the time the scimitar gets significantly better, system balance tends to break down in worse ways. And my campaigns rarely get into the double-digits anyway.

And the above math ignores that even in Pathfinder there are a FEW foes which ignore critical hits, or have a % chance to ignore (even via the Fortify enchantment). Though on the other hand, it ignores all of the critical feats/abilities which add extra effects on crits - many of which are super nasty.

[Darg]

How is a scimitar better than a longsword? A scimitar deals an average of (3.5 * .85) + (7 * .15) = 4.025 damage, while a longsword deals an average of (4.5 * .9) + (9 * .1) = 4.95 damage. What am I missing something, or is my math wrong?

Over all base damage is worse, but when you start adding on modifiers that get multiplied too you start surpassing the base damage on average. You also have enhancements which only activate on criticals. The only way base damage scales higher is by increasing the effective size of the weapon which generally requires a caster to take pity on you.

[heavyfuel]

Still I'd argue that even if you bump the dice up as you propose, a+2 average damage is STILL way weaker than +1 crit ratio...so why bother? It's a pretty nothing houserule that isn't going to change anything in the grand scheme. There's a reason one of the best weapons in the game for crit fishing has a d4 damage die and nobody cares: crits are just that good.

As it stands, a +2 longsword starts losing to the +1 keen scimitar at around +13 damage. By my proposed house rule, the +2 longsword now starts loosing at around +20 damage.

Getting +20 damage isn't exactly hard, but it is definitely harder than +13.

It's not meant to be the ultimate solution, but just a patch so that if you do want to a character with a longsword, you don't feel super gimped.


How is a scimitar better than a longsword? A scimitar deals an average of (3.5 * .85) + (7 * .15) = 4.025 damage, while a longsword deals an average of (4.5 * .9) + (9 * .1) = 4.95 damage. What am I missing something, or is my math wrong?

You're forgetting bonuses. If I have +20 to damage rolls, the scimitar deals 27.025 dmg while the longsword deals 26.95. Hardly a huge difference if you hit every time, but when you start accounting for AC, the damage difference benefits the scimitar more and more. The same goes for your damage roll bonuses

[CharonsHelper]

You're forgetting bonuses. If I have +20 to damage rolls, the scimitar deals 27.025 dmg while the longsword deals 26.95. Hardly a huge difference if you hit every time, but when you start accounting for AC, the damage difference benefits the scimitar more and more. The same goes for your damage roll bonuses

Wait - what? How does AC shift the balance at all? All critical hits need to be confirmed. Actually, based upon your logic, a higher AC would benefit the longsword as it is +1 more accurate due to the scimitar sacrificing +1 for Keen. (Which, IMO is generally a bad idea, as right around the time when the high critical becomes advantageous they can grab Improved Critical. One feat for +1 attack & damage is very solid, especially when the enchantment bonus will get you closer to bypassing DR as well.)

The only way the higher AC would shift to the scimitar at all (assuming that they still hit on at least a 15) is if they have the Critical Focus feat to make confirmations more likely.

[heavyfuel]

Wait - what? How does AC shift the balance at all? All critical hits need to be confirmed.

I... Don't know. But it totally does. Somehow.

Plugging every d20 roll in Excel and averaging the totals, I got that a character with atk 19 hitting an AC 30 enemy (50% chance) with a +1 keen scimitar and +20 damage bonus hits for 15.275 average. The same dude with a +2 longsword instead hits for 15.4275. So the longsword deals 1.009 more damage.

However, if we lower enemy AC to 25, now the scimitar deals 22.9125 average and the longsword deals 22.44 average. So the longsword now deals less damage.

I'm not a mathematician. I don'tg know how or why, but AC does influence it somehow.

EDIT: Which I now realize is exactly the opposite of what I said before. I though lower AC was better for the longsword, but apparently it's not :smallconfused:

[NigelWalmsley]

It's not meant to be the ultimate solution, but just a patch so that if you do want to a character with a longsword, you don't feel super gimped.

But what if you want to play a character with a scimitar, but get a damage bonus at which the longsword is superior? If all we care about is raw damage, one weapon or the other will always have a bigger number. It still seems to me that the most likely case for this change is that you move some things around without creating a clear improvement.

[Saintheart]

I... Don't know. But it totally does. Somehow.

Plugging every d20 roll in Excel and averaging the totals, I got that a character with atk 19 hitting an AC 30 enemy (50% chance) with a +1 keen scimitar and +20 damage bonus hits for 15.275 average. The same dude with a +2 longsword instead hits for 15.4275. So the longsword deals 1.009 more damage.

However, if we lower enemy AC to 25, now the scimitar deals 22.9125 average and the longsword deals 22.44 average. So the longsword now deals less damage.

I'm not a mathematician. I don'tg know how or why, but AC does influence it somehow.

EDIT: Which I now realize is exactly the opposite of what I said before. I though lower AC was better for the longsword, but apparently it's not :smallconfused:

That's really interesting! I'm no mathematician either, but the only thing I could think of is that a critical hit by definition requires two attack rolls: the first to score the threat, and the second to confirm the hit. When we drop the AC from 30 to 25, the likelihood of a critical hit on the keen weapon rises. For it to get a critical threat and a confirmation against an AC 30 target with a +19 attack bonus, you have to score at least 15 on the critical threat and then roll at least 11 on the confirmation roll.

For the keen scimitar against an AC 25 target, you have to still score at least 15 on the critical threat roll, but you only have to roll 6 on the confirmation roll. That translates to a higher chance of a critical hit, and therefore on those hits your damage is higher - which in turn should raise the overall average of damage scored.

The longsword gets a similar boost, but it doesn't have a higher chance of doubled damage.

Maybe that's where the numbers are coming from. (I also wonder whether you've accounted for a natural 1 always being a miss in the spreadsheet?)

[heavyfuel]

But what if you want to play a character with a scimitar, but get a damage bonus at which the longsword is superior? If all we care about is raw damage, one weapon or the other will always have a bigger number. It still seems to me that the most likely case for this change is that you move some things around without creating a clear improvement.

Well, crit range is still more important than base damage, so if you want to play a character with a scimitar you'll still come out ahead. Not to mention stuff like critical feats (I think that's the name) which make crits even more valuables.

The intention is not to make longsword a better than scimitars or shorts words better than kukris. Just to make them a little bit more competitive

[heavyfuel]

(I also wonder whether you've accounted for a natural 1 always being a miss in the spreadsheet?)

I indeed accounted for it

[CharonsHelper]

EDIT: Which I now realize is exactly the opposite of what I said before. I though lower AC was better for the longsword, but apparently it's not :smallconfused:

Yeah - I was turned around. But yes, with the extra 1 point of accuracy, the lower the AC, the less that matters for the longsword. Not any different than for Power Attack - against high AC targets it's not worth using.

Of course - once you start accounting for iterative attacks, the math gets more confusing. Though again, while I'll use keen weapons when I find them, I rarely/never put them on weapons because I'd rather just wait and get the Improved Critical feat anyway.


Well, crit range is still more important than base damage, so if you want to play a character with a scimitar you'll still come out ahead. Not to mention stuff like critical feats (I think that's the name) which make crits even more valuables.

The intention is not to make longsword a better than scimitars or shorts words better than kukris. Just to make them a little bit more competitive

Yeah, once you get the high level critical hit feats, no amount of extra damage would be better than the 15-20 crits. But again, most games don't get out of the single digits anyway. So largely what your change would do is make scimitars suck at the levels most people actually play, and do nothing to change the balance at high levels.

[heavyfuel]

with the extra 1 point of accuracy, the lower the AC, the less that matters for the longsword.


Yeah, once you get the high level critical hit feats, no amount of extra damage would be better than the 15-20 crits. But again, most games don't get out of the single digits anyway.

Ah, that makes sense. Nice catch!

This is indeed true. However, this game is going to start at level 11. That's why I thought about buffing weapons with low crits and no other special ability.