Rebalancing Weapons!

[Voice of Kerensky]

Well, I've brought up about everything else.  

Seriously though, we know from:

Jun 1, 2015 7:31:01 GMT -5 Vincent07 said:

Katana threat range will be increasing.

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.

[Voice of Kerensky]

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.

[valiea987]

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?

[Voice of Kerensky]

Jun 1, 2015 17:00:06 GMT -5 valiea987 said:

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).

[Wittle Dreamer]

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

[Voice of Kerensky]

Jun 1, 2015 17:06:50 GMT -5 Wittle Dreamer said:

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.

[suddenperihelion]

Jun 1, 2015 16:51:49 GMT -5 psappho said:

Dwarven Waraxe: 1d10 slashing, 19-20x3

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.

[Vincent07]

Jun 1, 2015 17:09:54 GMT -5 psappho said:

Jun 1, 2015 17:06:50 GMT -5 Wittle Dreamer said:

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.

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.  

[Vincent07]

Jun 1, 2015 17:21:52 GMT -5 suddenperihelion said:

Jun 1, 2015 16:51:49 GMT -5 psappho said:

Dwarven Waraxe: 1d10 slashing, 19-20x3

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.

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.

[valiea987]

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.

[Voice of Kerensky]

Jun 1, 2015 17:21:52 GMT -5 suddenperihelion said:

Jun 1, 2015 16:51:49 GMT -5 psappho said:

Dwarven Waraxe: 1d10 slashing, 19-20x3

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.

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.

[suddenperihelion]

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

[Voice of Kerensky]

Jun 1, 2015 17:56:17 GMT -5 suddenperihelion said:

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

Can always Skype as well.

[Voice of Kerensky]

Jun 1, 2015 17:56:17 GMT -5 suddenperihelion said:

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

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.

[suddenperihelion]

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