Cormyr and the Dalelands

Well, I've brought up about everything else.  

Seriously though, we know from:



That there is apparently some attention to weapons that really don't get proper love/appropriate payback for investment. I think an in-depth look would be worthwhile.

Halberd, greatsword, and greataxe are a good example of weapons that are reasonably balanced to each other -- halberd gets slightly lower damage but an extra damage type, greataxe gets slightly more damage than the halberd, greatsword gets the highest min/avg damage but 19-20x2 instead of x3. All have arguable mechanical advantages and are reasonable for martial proficiency. Likewise, longsword, battle axe, warhammer, scimitar, and rapier all compare decently to each other.

As it stands, katana and bastard sword are both kinda lame. You're basically spending a feat for 1 average extra damage over a longsword. There are way more valuable things to spend a feat on, including weapon specialization which gives +2 average damage. Dwarven waraxe is in the exact same boat, it's a feat expenditure for 1 extra average damage over battle axe. I'd say make bastard sword and dwarven waraxe both 1d12 compared to katana being 1d10, but quite frankly a critical threat range buff is worth way more than 1 extra average damage. Katana's aforementioned critical range buff helps make it a worthy payoff; what would you give bastard sword and dwarven axe to distinguish them from katana and likewise buff them?

Double weapons are probably the biggest stand-out in terms of being "bad" for the investment (aside from the irredeemable whip). They all compare horribly to their 1-handed equivalents.

Dire Mace: Worst of the bunch. Compared to dual-wielded mace, it's an average of 1 extra damage (1d6 vs 1d8) for TWO extra feats. Unlike the mace, you can't drop 1 hand and use a shield, so that tactical versatility is sacrificed as well, and even more mace works with finesse and dire mace does not. Badbadbadbadbad.

Double Axe: Only fares slightly better than the dire mace. The comparison for double axe to handaxe is roughly the same as dire mace to mace, except that you only have to spend 1 extra feat instead of two. Still awful.

Two-Bladed Sword: Same amount of badness as double axe -- compare it to a short sword, 1 extra average damage, all the same drawbacks as double axe vs handaxe.

I'd personally give them all base damage buffs, if nothing else, (1d10 for all 3), as the real "fix" I would give to double weapons would probably require NWNX. That said, given that you sacrifice the tactical ability to use a shield with them (the str crowd) and can't finesse them (the dex crowd), I think they need a little more than a slight damage tweak.

Some of the obvious really crummy things:

Whip: Good luck realistically fixing this thing. I tap out.

Club: It's a bad mace (not light or finessable). Druids can buff it, I guess?

Quarterstaff: It's a really, really bad spear. Less damage and less critical. Druids can buff it, I guess? Mages too, but their buff stinks.

Trident: It's a bad spear that requires an extra feat.

Sickle: It's a mace with a worse damage type, and is not finessable/light.

There's some other stuff, too, but I think the above is a good start.

I hate complaining without suggesting fixes myself, so here's some of what I'd look at doing:

Katana: 1d10 slashing, 18-20x2

Bastard Sword: 1d12 slashing and piercing, 19-20x2

Dwarven Waraxe: 1d12 slashing, 20x3


Dire Mace: 1d10, bludgeoning and piercing, 19-20x2 -- there's nothing tremendously powerful about this, but decent damage types and damage.

Double Axe: 1d12, slashing, 20x3 -- easier to dual wield, compared to dwarven axe, but give up ability to use shield.

Two-Bladed Sword: 1d10, slashing, 18-20x2 -- easier to dual wield, compared to katana, but give up ability to use shield. Alternatively, make it slashing + piercing, 1d12, 19-20x2 and compare it to bastard sword.


I'll probably suggest more later.

Another question for you: If a weapon has both slashing and piercing, how does that translate into damage? So if an enemy has damage resistance 5 against slashing, would the weapon then just automatically do piercing damage instead?

Correct. That is the value of multi-typed weapons, as well as the extra damage type: X perk. For a creature to resist damage from a multi-type weapon, it must resist all damage types of that weapon (this doesn't count extra damage bonuses of a specific type, which are factored separately).

If we're at it, I think Longsword should get some rebalancing too then!

I am personally of the opinion that it should likewise be slashing+piercing base.

19-20/x3 is incredibly strong compared to any other weapon in the game. That's as much better than a scimitar as a scimitar is better than a longsword.

I believe it is currently.  Not sure when this happened tbh, but it was noticed that it went through slashing DR some time ago.  I would have to check the .2da to verify, as I do not recall if I've already fixed that in my updated versions.  Suppose I could look.

Some decent thoughts here, otherwise.  

Yeah, that would be probably too good IMO.  Especially if you then WM on top of it.  That would then hands down be the best dual-wield weapon master build for pure critical damage.

19-20, improved crit to 17-20, keen to 15-20, WM to 13-20/x3, add the WM added multiplier: 13-20/x4. Yeeeeeah that's really good.

Scimitar isn't actually that much better than a longsword, mathematically, until massive crits + overwhelming crits + devastating crits in particular come into effect. Mostly the latter. The extra 1 base damage, in retrospect, actually holds its ground pretty well, and is obviously superior vs crit-immune or high AC targets. 19-20x3, on the other hand, is, well... see below.

I just couldn't think of what else to do with ye olde dwarven waraxe. Guess you could just make it the 20x3 version of the bastard sword; 1d12, slashing, 20x3.

19-20x3 was the work boredom talking (also I may have done something really dumb with a calculator).


Updated previous post to reflect proposed changes.

I can PM you the mathematics underlying this assertion if you like Psapphy!

Can always Skype as well.

I'd actually rather publicly demonstrate some of the simple math you can go through, just for people to be able to see. Edge, avert your eyes!  

The below scenario is favorable to the scimitar, in that the stats of the weapon are upper tier and the character is a strength-based character with a strength mod easy to achieve in that tier. It's realistically favorable, however. This plays down the longsword's base damage bonus significantly.

Weapon stats (both weapons): +5, +2d6, +11 from str mod
Scimitar: 26.5 avg
Longsword: 27.5 avg

In this scenario, the character has 4 attacks. They're attacking a critter they can hit on a 6 or higher (75%) on their first attack. They have improved critical and a keen blade. The numbers here represent the average damage of all crits + normal attacks over 20 rounds. Columns are 1st-4th attack, left number is regular attacks, right number is crits.

Scimitar:

218.625 + 357.75 = 576.375
145.75 + 238.5 = 384.25
99.375 + 66.25 = 165.625
25.175 + 2.65 = 27.85

20 round total = 1154.075

Longsword:

288.75 + 247.5 = 536.25
192.5 + 165 = 357.5
103.125 + 68.75 = 171.875
26.125 + 2.75 = 28.875

20 round total = 1094.5

Difference: ~5.3%

So as we can see, scimitar does have an advantage, but it's not absolutely world breaking. 5% is significant, but how significant?

Well, if there was such a thing as a d5, it's worth the longsword being 2d5 base damage. With the average damage from that being 105.45% of the 1d8 (27.5 vs 29), we're looking at 1154.15 -- pretty much identical to the scimitar.

However, 2d5 isn't a thing -- 1d10 is too weak, and 1d12 is too strong. These differences would amplify in the longsword's favor with lower tier weapons/characters. It likewise amplifies in the longsword's favor vs crit immune critters and critters with higher AC (the ones that, typically, you really NEED the better DPS against).

Speaking of crit immune critters, here's how the above works out with a crit immune monster over the same round/same AC/etc:

Longsword:

412.5
275
137.5
27.5

20 round total = 852.5

Scimitar:

397.5
265
132.5
26.5

20 round total = 821.5

Difference = ~3.7%

Now here's why I like adding a 2nd damage type to longsword over simply upping the damage to a purely hypothetical dice type. Let's say the longsword is multi-type and the critter we're facing has just 5/- slashing resist.

Take the 31 attacks that land over that 20 round period and subtract 5 from each and we're left with a 155 total subtraction. When you apply those numbers to the scimitar in the crit-vulnerable scenario, the longsword being able to bypass DR that comes out with about ~9.1% more damage. If you apply that 5/- to the crit-immune scenario, the longsword comes out with a whopping ~24.4% more damage.

Ultimately, at least in regards to this (I think somewhat realistic) set of scenarios in which a longsword is multi-type, the scimitar is worth about 5.3% more damage in ideal conditions for the scimitar (crit vulnerable, no DR), but the longsword is a more versatile tool. Now as I pointed out above, once you start throwing in things like massive crits, overwhelming crit, and particularly our old friend dev crit, the scimitar becomes rather nasty.

I think if you give longsword an extra damage type, the difference is ultimately relatively insignificant for most power levels on most characters with most gear in most scenarios on the server. I also think there's an argument for upping the longsword to 1d10 base along with the extra damage type given the scimitar's superior performance at high tiers, but that creates the problem of having to rebalance the damage values for most of the weapons in the game.

tl;dr, 3.0/3.5 really needed design people who could math.

Strictly speaking, 2d5 is possible in NWN. The game engine doesn't require physically possible dice =D

Yea, but..

The changes I would personally like to see would be changing spears to one-handed, as it is possible in NWN and the animations aren't bad for it, particularly with the warrior fighting stance. Right now spears are just a crappy alternative to halberds, greatswords, and greataxes.

I would also give some love to light flails and heavy flails. They have a comically low crit multiplier and base damage for a big spiked mace flung around on a chain with a stick. Their primary advantage in PnP is negated in NWN as they don't get a bonus to disarm checks and any weapon can be used to make trip (knockdown) attempts, not just flails and other special weapons. I would increase light flails to 1d10/x3 and heavy flails to 2d6 or 2d8/x3, removing the 19-20 crit range heavy flails have.

Just going to chime in here.  How is 1d10, 18-20/x2 fair for a Katana, when a Bastard Sword requires the same feat and is 1d10 19-20/x2?  Make it 1d8, 18-20/x2.  That makes it more like a bastard scimitar.

That's pretty close to what Psappho is suggesting in the second post!

The Katana is going to 1d8 18-20/x2.  As said in another post (I think in the other thread), the damage is being reduced to increase the threat range... making it the scimitar to the bastard sword's longsword.

Might be best to take these things one at a time, since things are getting messy:

Thought 1:

If the katana threat range is moved to 18-20, then it would likely be best for the original idea of making it 1d8. That way it is 1d2 greater than the scimitar.

This is the same amount of movement from longsword (1d8) -> bastard sword (1d10). This is what is already planned from the posts I saw... But there was also talk of maybe buffing the Bastard Sword instead, so:

Thought 2:

The second topic getting mixed with the first is: Maybe the 1d2 increase in damage isn't worth the extra feat. Should it be 2d2 instead? In other words, should it be 1d10 18-20 Katana and 1d12 19-20 Bastard Sword?

I think one thing to then keep in mind is that the Dwarven Waraxe then essentially becomes a 1 handed Greataxe, and the Bastard Sword becomes a 1 handed Greatsword (with a minimum damage of 1 instead of 2).

Maybe this would justify boosting the damage of the Greatsword/Greataxe a bit. But that then introduces the problem of the dice. I think SP said that unnatural dice can happen in the engine, but that may be undesirable just for D&D authenticity. Adding a d2 would be 1d14 or 2d7. Or, they could be brought together and both get 2d2 added, so they both are 2d8 weapons.

This would make the weapon spread look like:

Martial 1h:
Scimitar: 1d6 18-20/x2.
Battleaxe: 1d8 20/x3
Longsword: 1d8 19-20/x2.

Exotic 1h (+1d4 from Exotic Feat):
Katana: 1d10 18-20/x2
Dwarven Waraxe: 1d12 20/x3
Bastard Sword: 1d12 19-20/x2

Martial 2h (+1d from One Hand->Two Hand):
: 2d6 18-20/x2
Greataxe: 2d8 20/x3
Greatsword: 2d8 19-20/x2

That's one way to look at it. It does sort of upset the 1d12 vs 2d6 distinction between the Greatsword and Greataxe, but maybe that isn't too significant?

The general idea here is okay but you don't need to get that wild with it. As it stands, the greatsword + greataxe only have roughly 1 more damage average than bastard sword/katana/dwarven waraxe. I'd look at upping the min on greataxe before anything else. Keep in mind that while the base damage is good, some of the real value in using 2 handers is in the 1.5x strength mod. To be honest, I'm not wholly opposed to the 2d8 suggestion either, but am trying to keep the same rough base damage 'cap' as now.

Personally, I'm not really sure why greataxe and greatsword don't have the same damage, when the general trend expressed in other weapon comparisons is 19-20x2 = 20x3 at the same damage values/same damage types; a simple calculation shows them to be equal in most circumstances. I'd just up the min of the greataxe to distinguish it from dwarven axe, and give the halberd a small boost while we're at it.

Here's a little bit more of an in-depth rework that keeps close to current values. Just non-light martial and above weapons for now.

Rapier = 1d6 piercing, 18-20x2
Scimitar = 1d6 slashing, 18-20x2
Longsword = 1d8 slashing+piercing, 19-20x2
Warhammer = 1d8 bludgeoning, 20x3
Battle Axe = 2d4 slashing, 20x3 (I felt this needed a bump, as warhammer has the better damage type, longsword has more damage types and scimitar the typically better crit profile)
Light Flail = 1d8 bludgeoning, 19-20x2

Katana = 1d10 slashing, 18-20x2 (gains avg 2 damage over scimitar for feat expenditure)
Bastard Sword = 1d12 slashing+piercing, 19-20x2 (gains avg 2 damage over longsword for feat expenditure)
Dwarven Axe = 1d12 slashing+piercing, 20x3 (gains avg 1.5 damage and a damage type over battle axe for feat expenditure)

Greataxe = 2d6 slashing 20x3
Greatsword  = 2d6 slashing 19-20x2
Halberd = 1d12 slashing+piercingmmm 20x3
Heavy Flail = 1d12 bludgeoning+piercingm 19-20x2
Scythe = 2d4 slashing+piercingm 20x4 (I hate this thing thematically and wouldn't mind seeing halberd trade places with it, but it is what it is...)

Dire Mace = 1d12 bludgeoning 20x2
Two-Handed Sword = 1d12 slashing 19-20x2
Double Axe = 1d12 slashing 20x3

or

Dire Mace = 1d12 bludgeoning, 19-20x2 or 20x3
Two-Handed Sword = 1d12 slashing+piercing, 19-20x2
Double Axe = 2d6 slashing, 20x3

(I prefer this of the two, as it's basically in line with warhammer/flail vs longsword vs battleaxe)

Punky comes along with a handy-dandy chart.


~BR

Thanks for that. Knew it was around somewhere. Uses the same calcs that I use.

There are several things the above guide does not take account for:

The value of multi-type in bypassing specific DR.
DPS adjusted for crit immunity--a rather important one on CD given the prevalence of undead and constructs.

And maybe finessable if that could be done >_>

Never understood why something like spears and quarterstaves couldn't technically be finesse weapons given how they'd be used in real life. Unless we're talking longspears and pikes which would have no grand use in NWN to begin with since reach weapons aren't really a thing.

The one-handed (shortspear) spears in p&p do 1d6 damage. Larger, two-handed spears do 1d8 damage.

It'd be pretty simple to add in a 1d6, one-handed shortspear baseitem. Though you'd need nwnx to hook up the appropriate weapon feats to it (unless you cannibalized the weapon feats and 2da entries from some other weapon).

Making a weapon finesseable is something that can be set with nwnx.

You could just rename the existing spear to a short spear and make it one-handed, since the models ingame pretty much are short spears. I don't think the damage should be lowered, though. Lowering it to 1d6 would just result in it being ignored in the one-handed category as it is in the two-handed one for the same reason, as there would be better alternatives out there. 1d8 and x3 crit range make it comparable to a longsword or battleaxe.

A one-handed simple weapon that does 1d8 damage and has a 20/x3 critical threat range would be entirely superior to other simple weapons. In fact, it would be as good as a martial weapon.

A spear that was that good would work better as a martial weapon than a simple weapon.

A one handed spear would probably be a martial weapon I'd think.

Would probably be better as a martial weapon though correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the simple weapon heavy mace have a x3 multiplier, same as the martial weapon warhammer and both have 1d8 damage? Granted you can't take feats in heavy mace because it wasn't in base NWN.

No, heavy mace is only x2.

2d5 is possible in meatspace, too.  You just take two ten-sided polyhedrons, and label the sides 1 to 5, two sides per number.

Or if you're cheap/lazy, just roll 1d10.

If you need 1d5, roll 1d10 and divide the result in half, round up.

I'd much prefer extradimensional dice myself!

Did someone say.... Cthulhu dice? 

Rebalancing weapons!? That sounds swell!
SO JUST!
DO IT!!
DOOOO IT!!!

If you're tired of weapons being jank,
stop not rebalancing them.