So, I'm looking into making a half-orc barbarian for an upcoming campaign. I'd like to be strength based with a big two-handed weapon, but I can't decide if I'd like to use a greataxe, greatsword, or a maul. I know the greatsword and maul have a slight statistical advantage from the two dice but I'm wondering if anyone has come across any advantage to using one or the other or is this simply a matter of style? Or maybe the slashing weapons(greataxe, greatsword) may have a better use for cutting other things that the maul(bludgeoning) does not?
Some enemies have resistances certain basic damage types or like skeletons weak to one (bludgeoning).
I would say go with what you think is thematic first, like axes just look brutal and my guy is a brutal dude so he uses that. Maybe they are a little more refined so they use the ever elegant greatsword, They hate the undead, or worked as a stone mason so they use the maul.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
From a purely numerical viewpoint, a greatsword or maul beats a greataxe hands-down unless you have a feature like a barbarian's Brutal Critical that you want to get the most out of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Well, I'm thinking of a half-orc barbarian and so the Brutal Critical plus the racial Savage Attacks add up to some nice damage on a crit, but from the number crunching I've done it still looks like a maul/greatsword comes out marginally ahead of a greataxe when you take the average of all attacks (crit and not). Here was the method I used:
A regular attack with a maul does 2d6 or 7 dmg on average and a crit (for a half-orc from lvl 1-8) is 4d6+1d6=17.5 on avg. Because you only have a 5% chance to get a crit and a 95% for a non-crit, the average of all attacks from lvl 1-8 would be: (7*0.95)+(17.5*0.05)=7.5
At lvl 9 you get one more crit die, bringing the maul crit dmg to 6d6 or (21) for lvls 9-12. Using the same method as before yields: (7*0.95)+(21*0.05)=7.7
The number of crit dmg die goes up again at lvl 13, and then once more at lvl 17. And so, using this method you get:
Maul/Greatsword:
1-8 lvl: (7*0.95)+(17.5*0.05)=7.5
9-12 lvl: (7*0.95)+(21*0.05)=7.7
13-16 lvl: (7*0.95)+(24.5*0.05)=7.9
17-20 lvl: (7*0.95)+(28*0.05)=8.1
Greataxe:
1-8 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(19.5*0.05)=7.2
9-12 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(26*0.05)=7.5
13-16 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(32.5*0.05)=7.8
17-20 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(39*0.05)=8.1
It looks like the issue is that the chance to crit is so low that the maul/greatsword's higher non-crit damage outweighs the increase in dmg die of the greataxe. If instead we were looking at a character with an increase in crit chance, this would be a completely different calculation. If I'm missing something or have made a bad assumption please let me know. Thanks!
Well, I'm thinking of a half-orc barbarian and so the Brutal Critical plus the racial Savage Attacks add up to some nice damage on a crit, but from the number crunching I've done it still looks like a maul/greatsword comes out marginally ahead of a greataxe when you take the average of all attacks (crit and not). Here was the method I used:
A regular attack with a maul does 2d6 or 7 dmg on average and a crit (for a half-orc from lvl 1-8) is 4d6+1d6=17.5 on avg. Because you only have a 5% chance to get a crit and a 95% for a non-crit, the average of all attacks from lvl 1-8 would be: (7*0.95)+(17.5*0.05)=7.5
At lvl 9 you get one more crit die, bringing the maul crit dmg to 6d6 or (21) for lvls 9-12. Using the same method as before yields: (7*0.95)+(21*0.05)=7.7
The number of crit dmg die goes up again at lvl 13, and then once more at lvl 17. And so, using this method you get:
Maul/Greatsword:
1-8 lvl: (7*0.95)+(17.5*0.05)=7.5
9-12 lvl: (7*0.95)+(21*0.05)=7.7
13-16 lvl: (7*0.95)+(24.5*0.05)=7.9
17-20 lvl: (7*0.95)+(28*0.05)=8.1
Greataxe:
1-8 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(19.5*0.05)=7.2
9-12 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(26*0.05)=7.5
13-16 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(32.5*0.05)=7.8
17-20 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(39*0.05)=8.1
It looks like the issue is that the chance to crit is so low that the maul/greatsword's higher non-crit damage outweighs the increase in dmg die of the greataxe. If instead we were looking at a character with an increase in crit chance, this would be a completely different calculation. If I'm missing something or have made a bad assumption please let me know. Thanks!
You've made the assumption that you'll always hit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Ok, after thinking about it a bit and trying to use an average AC by CR from the DMG, I've adjusted the average chance to hit at all levels besides lvl 9 to 60%, and your average chance to hit at level 9 being 65%. This lower chance to hit with non-crit attacks did make the impact of the maul/greatsword's higher average dmg on non-crits less significant but they still do more overall dmg (albeit marginally more) than the greataxe until lvl 17 where the greataxe finally overtakes the maul/greatsword.
Either way, it's interesting to note that whether the greataxe or a maul/greatsword does more damage overall is dependent upon hit probability, with the greataxe coming out ahead the lower your chance to hit is. As your overall chance to hit drops, your overall average damage becomes more dependent upon crit damage where the greataxe comes out on top.
Heh. Neat. Not sure how useful this would be for a barbarian, unless they carry both around and switch up to a greataxe against a dragon or something. Maybe a fighter would employ a "weapon-switching" strategy depending on the adversary. Of course the math would be different for a champion fighter when the crit chance goes up.
Once you sit down at the gaming table, the dice forget all your careful mathematics, and reward you for flamboyant play.
The question you should really be considering is Bald, Mohican, or Shaggy?
Unless you are competing in the world D&D championships, what does it matter if you are doing 19 or 21 points of damage a turn? (Unless all the monsters' HPs are a multiple of twenty.)
A great CHARACTER has a 27% higher survival chance in a campaign than a great BUILD.
Edit : Statistically, you should pair the great sword with a bald pate, the great axe synergises with the mohican, and the shaggy look is 2% more effective with a great club. But as with all things, you should mix it up occasionally to baffle the Gods of Chance.
Once you sit down at the gaming table, the dice forget all your careful mathematics, and reward you for flamboyant play.
Too true. In the end it boils down to what is fun to play and none of the options are gimp by any means. I was excited about the maul from the beginning because of how intimidating having a small boulder on a stick would look swinging at you. I'm looking to play a half-orc and I'm thinking of painting an angry face on the maul and naming it something fun (Betty, or perhaps Lucille, heh).
You're also forgetting that Barbarians generally are Reckless Attacking; advantage shifts the odd of a critical from 0.95 to 0.9025 or so. In other words, roughly once per ten attacks. This shifts the expected damage of the barbarian pretty significantly in favor of the great axe.
Greatswords and mauls are better with a Fighter, who can use the FS to reroll those 1s and 2s.
Once you sit down at the gaming table, the dice forget all your careful mathematics, and reward you for flamboyant play.
The question you should really be considering is Bald, Mohican, or Shaggy?
Unless you are competing in the world D&D championships, what does it matter if you are doing 19 or 21 points of damage a turn? (Unless all the monsters' HPs are a multiple of twenty.)
A great CHARACTER has a 27% higher survival chance in a campaign than a great BUILD.
Edit : Statistically, you should pair the great sword with a bald pate, the great axe synergises with the mohican, and the shaggy look is 2% more effective with a great club. But as with all things, you should mix it up occasionally to baffle the Gods of Chance.
This
Also it seems like the d12 was made for the barbarian. IMHO the Barbarian wants those big fat angry reckless swings for the bigger fatter angrier more reckless crits. The question i pose when making a Barbarian is, what does my guy look like as he celebrates his victory over his freshly mangled enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grianne Wildpaw: Wood Elf Druid level 12 (8W-4L)- - Coliseum of Conquest: Master of Faerie Fire. Just don't ask her to spell it.
Grianne Wildpaw: Wood Elf Druid level 6 (2W-1L)- - Coliseum Reborn : Master of a Myriad of forms.
Runt, the Stormchosen: Half-Orc barbarian level 5 -- The Guild
I personally go with the Greatsword. I've played with the Greataxe and it seems because you roll 2 dice that i tend to roll better damage, maybe its just my imagination or my luck but i feel comfortable with my Greatsword.
If you attack with advantage and take about a 65% chance to hit, then the D12 outscales the 2D6 after 2 bonus crit dice. For an Orc this comes when you unlock the barbarians first die. The difference between the two is rather small thought. There is another and imo more important difference. Rolling 2D6 makes you roll a lot more average, only 1 in 36 rolls will be a 12, while it's 1 in 12 for the greataxe. Naturally the opposite is also true. It's even impossible to roll a 1.
TL;DR: 1D12 outscales 2D6 after 2 bonus crit dice (if you attack with advantage). Another important difference is that 2D6 rolls average, while 1D12 rolls evenly amongst all numbers.
That's true, but Savage Attacker is usually a trap. You're better off increasing your attacking ability score, especially if you have Extra Attack. Even if they waited until maxing out Strength, as a Barbarian they'd also be passing up huge benefits from increasing CON (HP + AC + CON saves.)
Picked up one of those Fisker Mauls yesterday at the hardware store. The "axe" side is definitely not sharp and angle along the "blade" is way to large for it to be a practical cutting implement, BUT if you want to break bones or crack skulls I don't think you could do better.
Picked up one of those Fisker Mauls yesterday at the hardware store. The "axe" side is definitely not sharp and angle along the "blade" is way to large for it to be a practical cutting implement, BUT if you want to break bones or crack skulls I don't think you could do better.
Short version - The damage range for 1d12 weapons is essentially the same as a 2d6 weapon, but the variability is different. 1d12 is more evenly distributed, while the 2d6 weapon damage will be more consistently in the middle, less likely to max out, but less likely to land the minimum as well. 1d12 weapons also benefit more from abilities that add more damage dice, but even if you use Reckless Attack all the time you're still not going to be landing crits all that often. So it's a question of whether you prefer to do more consistent damage, or if you enjoy having the possibility of those big spikes.
A Barb who's multiclassed into Fighter for the GWF style and potentially the increased crit range of the Champion makes the math a lot more complicated of course. But if a character choice requires an Excel sheet or a statistical modeling program, it loses a lot of the fun for me.
Bottom line, play what feels right for your character, you'll have more fun. You might even decide to go with a polearm, I could totally see a Half-Orc Barbarian wielding a Glaive. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I'm looking into making a half-orc barbarian for an upcoming campaign. I'd like to be strength based with a big two-handed weapon, but I can't decide if I'd like to use a greataxe, greatsword, or a maul. I know the greatsword and maul have a slight statistical advantage from the two dice but I'm wondering if anyone has come across any advantage to using one or the other or is this simply a matter of style? Or maybe the slashing weapons(greataxe, greatsword) may have a better use for cutting other things that the maul(bludgeoning) does not?
Some enemies have resistances certain basic damage types or like skeletons weak to one (bludgeoning).
I would say go with what you think is thematic first, like axes just look brutal and my guy is a brutal dude so he uses that. Maybe they are a little more refined so they use the ever elegant greatsword, They hate the undead, or worked as a stone mason so they use the maul.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
From a purely numerical viewpoint, a greatsword or maul beats a greataxe hands-down unless you have a feature like a barbarian's Brutal Critical that you want to get the most out of.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Well, I'm thinking of a half-orc barbarian and so the Brutal Critical plus the racial Savage Attacks add up to some nice damage on a crit, but from the number crunching I've done it still looks like a maul/greatsword comes out marginally ahead of a greataxe when you take the average of all attacks (crit and not). Here was the method I used:
A regular attack with a maul does 2d6 or 7 dmg on average and a crit (for a half-orc from lvl 1-8) is 4d6+1d6=17.5 on avg. Because you only have a 5% chance to get a crit and a 95% for a non-crit, the average of all attacks from lvl 1-8 would be: (7*0.95)+(17.5*0.05)=7.5
At lvl 9 you get one more crit die, bringing the maul crit dmg to 6d6 or (21) for lvls 9-12. Using the same method as before yields: (7*0.95)+(21*0.05)=7.7
The number of crit dmg die goes up again at lvl 13, and then once more at lvl 17. And so, using this method you get:
Maul/Greatsword:
1-8 lvl: (7*0.95)+(17.5*0.05)=7.5
9-12 lvl: (7*0.95)+(21*0.05)=7.7
13-16 lvl: (7*0.95)+(24.5*0.05)=7.9
17-20 lvl: (7*0.95)+(28*0.05)=8.1
Greataxe:
1-8 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(19.5*0.05)=7.2
9-12 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(26*0.05)=7.5
13-16 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(32.5*0.05)=7.8
17-20 lvl: (6.5*0.95)+(39*0.05)=8.1
It looks like the issue is that the chance to crit is so low that the maul/greatsword's higher non-crit damage outweighs the increase in dmg die of the greataxe. If instead we were looking at a character with an increase in crit chance, this would be a completely different calculation. If I'm missing something or have made a bad assumption please let me know. Thanks!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Ah! I knew I was forgetting something :)
So, I need to adjust that 95% down to a more reasonable average then look again. Thanks!
Ok, after thinking about it a bit and trying to use an average AC by CR from the DMG, I've adjusted the average chance to hit at all levels besides lvl 9 to 60%, and your average chance to hit at level 9 being 65%. This lower chance to hit with non-crit attacks did make the impact of the maul/greatsword's higher average dmg on non-crits less significant but they still do more overall dmg (albeit marginally more) than the greataxe until lvl 17 where the greataxe finally overtakes the maul/greatsword.
Either way, it's interesting to note that whether the greataxe or a maul/greatsword does more damage overall is dependent upon hit probability, with the greataxe coming out ahead the lower your chance to hit is. As your overall chance to hit drops, your overall average damage becomes more dependent upon crit damage where the greataxe comes out on top.
Heh. Neat. Not sure how useful this would be for a barbarian, unless they carry both around and switch up to a greataxe against a dragon or something. Maybe a fighter would employ a "weapon-switching" strategy depending on the adversary. Of course the math would be different for a champion fighter when the crit chance goes up.
Do you want to slice, do you want to cut, or do you want to smash? That's right. You want to smash. Go with the maul to do that.
Once you sit down at the gaming table, the dice forget all your careful mathematics, and reward you for flamboyant play.
The question you should really be considering is Bald, Mohican, or Shaggy?
Unless you are competing in the world D&D championships, what does it matter if you are doing 19 or 21 points of damage a turn? (Unless all the monsters' HPs are a multiple of twenty.)
A great CHARACTER has a 27% higher survival chance in a campaign than a great BUILD.
Edit : Statistically, you should pair the great sword with a bald pate, the great axe synergises with the mohican, and the shaggy look is 2% more effective with a great club. But as with all things, you should mix it up occasionally to baffle the Gods of Chance.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
You're also forgetting that Barbarians generally are Reckless Attacking; advantage shifts the odd of a critical from 0.95 to 0.9025 or so. In other words, roughly once per ten attacks. This shifts the expected damage of the barbarian pretty significantly in favor of the great axe.
Greatswords and mauls are better with a Fighter, who can use the FS to reroll those 1s and 2s.
Grianne Wildpaw: Wood Elf Druid level 12 (8W-4L)- - Coliseum of Conquest: Master of Faerie Fire. Just don't ask her to spell it.
Grianne Wildpaw: Wood Elf Druid level 6 (2W-1L)- - Coliseum Reborn : Master of a Myriad of forms.
Runt, the Stormchosen: Half-Orc barbarian level 5 -- The Guild
Tomoe Gozen: Human Fighter Samurai level 5 -- Cronero (Solo Campaign)
I personally go with the Greatsword. I've played with the Greataxe and it seems because you roll 2 dice that i tend to roll better damage, maybe its just my imagination or my luck but i feel comfortable with my Greatsword.
If you attack with advantage and take about a 65% chance to hit, then the D12 outscales the 2D6 after 2 bonus crit dice. For an Orc this comes when you unlock the barbarians first die. The difference between the two is rather small thought. There is another and imo more important difference. Rolling 2D6 makes you roll a lot more average, only 1 in 36 rolls will be a 12, while it's 1 in 12 for the greataxe. Naturally the opposite is also true. It's even impossible to roll a 1.
TL;DR: 1D12 outscales 2D6 after 2 bonus crit dice (if you attack with advantage). Another important difference is that 2D6 rolls average, while 1D12 rolls evenly amongst all numbers.
Great axe also benefits more from Savage Attacker feat.
Use a Maulaxe
Blunt with one end, slashing with the other.
Picked up one of those Fisker Mauls yesterday at the hardware store. The "axe" side is definitely not sharp and angle along the "blade" is way to large for it to be a practical cutting implement, BUT if you want to break bones or crack skulls I don't think you could do better.
Picked up one of those Fisker Mauls yesterday at the hardware store. The "axe" side is definitely not sharp and angle along the "blade" is way to large for it to be a practical cutting implement, BUT if you want to break bones or crack skulls I don't think you could do better.
Short version - The damage range for 1d12 weapons is essentially the same as a 2d6 weapon, but the variability is different. 1d12 is more evenly distributed, while the 2d6 weapon damage will be more consistently in the middle, less likely to max out, but less likely to land the minimum as well. 1d12 weapons also benefit more from abilities that add more damage dice, but even if you use Reckless Attack all the time you're still not going to be landing crits all that often. So it's a question of whether you prefer to do more consistent damage, or if you enjoy having the possibility of those big spikes.
A Barb who's multiclassed into Fighter for the GWF style and potentially the increased crit range of the Champion makes the math a lot more complicated of course. But if a character choice requires an Excel sheet or a statistical modeling program, it loses a lot of the fun for me.
Bottom line, play what feels right for your character, you'll have more fun. You might even decide to go with a polearm, I could totally see a Half-Orc Barbarian wielding a Glaive. :)