View Full Version : number analysis on big damage dealing

03-18-2010, 11:16 AM
So I was bored waiting for my code to run, so I crunched some numbers in terms of those min/maxers who want the most dam possible for weapon/feat choice.

First, more dice (with same max dam) always better. 2d4 going to profit you more average dam than 1d8.

Second, holding a versatile weapon in two hands is not worth it compared to a standard two-handed weapon.

Third, bigger max dam is better than better to hit. So a longsword isn't really a great dam dealer on the average. The amount of hitting more often doesn't outweigh the difference in damage.

high crit is good, but not as good as multiple dice. The amount you will use it doesn't outweigh the bonus of multiple dice.

Finally, brutal 2 is not as good as brutal 1 with multiple dice. And Brutal 1 is not as good as multiple dice.

In conclusion, the Mordenkrad is the biggest damage dealer in the game (on average). Some might ask, well isn't it worth it to take Weapon focus (to get +1 to dam) instead of taking a feat to be proficient with the Mordenkrad. The answer: no. Mordenkrad will do slightly better overall.

So if you have a choice between weapon focus, weapon expertise, and weapon prof (mordenkrad) at first level, take the prof. And take focus before expertise.

This is all in the name of maximum average dam. And of course, this doesn't take into account flavor, defense, or reach (numerically hard to assess the advantage).

03-18-2010, 01:31 PM
Aye - these numbers correspond to damage correctly.

The one caveat I'd mention is whether or not your intention is to do damage. For example, a controller or a healer are generally far more interested in having an "on hit" go off then they are straight damage - and in those cases its clearly advantages to go for a better "to hit" or proficiency than anything else.

I'd also say it might be more important to hit for strikers that rely on +damage than those that need the big hits. For example, a Barbarian does mostly [W] damage to get the big damage numbers, whereas a rogue or ranger relies on + [sneak attack] or [hunters quarry] damage to get the big numbers. Since the +damage from those hits are constant regardless of the damage of the melee/ranged weapon, accuracy would play a greater role in their total damage output.

I'd also have to dig a little deeper into the different builds as well - some builds may improve their damage output with more hits (depending on powers) than a build that is all about weapon damage. (anything that says "ongoing damage" or other factors that are not as dependant on the weapon damage)

Also, it logically stands to reason that anything related to a group bonus to damage (such as "until the end of your next turn, any ally who strikes the target gains a +5 to damage") would benefit greater from increased accuracy as opposed to the weapon's base damage.

Can you tell I love number crunching? :-)

03-18-2010, 02:00 PM
Not necessarily true concerning accuracy and extra dam fro being a striker. For attacks regarding a higher to hit roll (12+), better to have big accuracy than big dam. For attacks needing a 11 or lower to hit, the accuracy doesn't help. Considering a rogue needs combat adv to get the extra dam, it is rare he'll need higher than a natural 11 to hit. For 1d6 extra (hunter's quarry), it is even worse. The break point is for attacks needing 14+.

Even the difference of using a dagger as a rogue and a short sword as a rogue (aside from concealing and all of that nonsense), the dagger will typically do less dam than the short sword, even though you get that extra +1 to atk.

Assuming the defenses of your targets are typical, than bigger dice still wins over bigger accuracy.

But again, when it comes to flavor and tactics, this analysis has nothing to do with that. Just simple attacks.

Also, statistically, the ongoing dam will only occur once (55% chance of success), so that only adds a +5 (if ongoing dam 5) to the statistics of the dam.

03-18-2010, 02:09 PM
Nothing to add here, just some childish giggling at weapon names.

(I would like to see if there's any correlation between the mechanical superiority of a weapon and the silliness of its name. 'Mordenkrad' sounds like either a side dish or a communicable disease.)

03-18-2010, 02:32 PM
I'd be curious to run the numbers on the statistics for accuracy - it seems that in all cases, a +1 to hit will always translate into 5 more strikes per 100 blows. Given that a d20 will always (over time) have an equal chance to land on any number, it stands to reason that 60% compared to 65% is still 5 more hits over a hundred swings.

Back to my number crunching! :-)
--- Merged from Double Post ---
PS - Mordenkrad is absolutely more powerful because of the name. Words have power, right? :-)

Ok, quick comparison - using a d6 short sword and a d8 longsword - adding 1d6 backstab damage for each hit and with a 10% difference in accuracy (expertise feat for SS) they actually came up surprisinglyg close for damage. Over a hundred swings, 502.5 for the SS and 497.5 for the LS. Obviously feat choices over the career of the rogue will impact this to a large degree, but it does show that accuracy isn't entirely without merit.

03-19-2010, 08:16 AM
I need to ask. Are you using a random number generator? If so, you need to be careful. Random number generators are usually not truly random. You will get a biased response (usually not noticeable, but it is there). My number crunching is based on the true probability (needing a 11 to hit means a 50% chance of missing, so the dam for a shortsword with an 18 dex and 1st level on a power that is 2[w] would be 4(dex)+7(2d6 avg for weapon)+7(2d6 for snk atk)= 18 times 50% is 9). Of course I replace 5% of that with a critical hit for an average dam output of 23. Making the total dam more like 9.25.

03-19-2010, 11:01 AM
No random number generator here. Ignoring extreme outliers (def so high it requires a crit to hit), regardless of the defense each "+" to hit equals a 5% greater chance of striking a target. With expertise (another 5%) it comes to 10% greater chance to hit. no matter where the target "to hit" bar is (ignoring extremes) the 10% still applies:

Need a 9 to hit? With prof/expertise you'd need a 7. Need a 7? With prof/exp you'd need a 5 to hit. Need a 16? With prof/exp you'd need a 14. The basic line is that over 100 strikes, you will hit 10 more times with prof/exp than a similar setup without proficiency/expertise. Since a d20 has equal chance to roll any number on its face, no random number generator is required - its probability curve is flat.

Now if you add a second die to the mix, the probability curve starts to look like a curve, with results in the middle much more likely to occur than results at either end of the scale. This brings up an interesting point mentioned earlier regarding multiple die versus single die weapon damage. For simplicity's sake, let's consider a d10 (and an imaginary 2d5 weapon). The range of results for the 2d5 is better, since it has a higher minimum (2-10) versus the 1d10 (1-10). However, the probability curve for the d10 is flat, since all outcomes carry an equal likelihood of occuring. This is not the case with the 2d5 - it produces a curve the favors values in the middle. (again, this is ignoring other weapon factors like "Brutal)

The 1d10 has an equal 10% chance to land on any number. Now compare it to the probability results for a 2d5:
2 - 4%
3 - 8%
4 - 12%
5 - 16%
6 - 20%
7 - 16%
8 - 12%
9 - 8%
10 - 4%
In essence, over a 100 swings the 2d5 will roll max damage 4 times, but the 1d10 will roll it 10 times. However, the average damage for the 2d5 over a 100 swings is 6, whereas the d10 would be 5.5. If you factor in Brutal 1 for 2d5 and Brutal 2 for 1d10, then the results simply shift up one (6.5 avg damage for the 1d10, 7 avg damage for the 2d5). However, due to the small range of potential values, the percentages vary. Max damage for the 1d10 would increase in probability to 12.5%, where the 2d5 would hit max 6.25% of the time. Crits would affect this, but since the affect would be the same for either weapon, it wouldn't apply. (unless one weapon had a greater chance to crit - such as the dagger paragon path for rogues)

It is interesting, but all this number crunchy proves is that it all boils down to style/flavor. Use the weapon you like! If you like accuracy, go for a +3 prof weapon. If you like to see max damage a lot, go for a single die weapon damage (a 1d12, for example). If you want to see consistently good damage over time, switch to a mutli-die weapon (2d6 or similar).

03-19-2010, 07:26 PM
Ewww! Statistics. :puke: The probability of something happening is that it either does or doesn't. Therefore making it 50/50 or 50%. Yes, my stats. professor in college just loved me.