-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack?
- Thread starter Kai Lord
- Start date
Re: No, don't change it
Good point. Still, it should be possible to come up with other methods to boost the damage output of the finesse-fighter, rather than using crits. Complete Warrior will probably address this issue; even if it doesn't, there's always tons of homebrew feats around.
seankreynolds said:
Good point. Still, it should be possible to come up with other methods to boost the damage output of the finesse-fighter, rather than using crits. Complete Warrior will probably address this issue; even if it doesn't, there's always tons of homebrew feats around.
Ryan Koppenhaver
First Post
Xeriar said:
My calculations were done with the assumption that burst weapons do their critical +1d10 in addition to the standard +1d6, but aside from that, I concur with those numbers.
I'm afraid you've lost me there.
If you hit on a 10, then:
Out of 400 possiblities for 2d20:
1-9,[any] (9 * 20 = 180 possiblities) = miss
10-11,[any] (2 * 20 = 40 possibilities) = hit
12-20,1-9 (9 * 9 = 81 possibilities) = hit
12-20,10-20 (9 * 11 = 99 possibilites) = crit
thus,
P(miss) = 180/400 = 45%
P(regular hit) = 121/400 = 30.25%
P(crit) = 99/400 = 24.75%
(13.5 * .3025) + (25.5 * .2475) = 10.395
If you hit on a 3, then:
Out of 400 possiblities for 2d20:
1-2,[any] (2 * 20 = 40 possiblities) = miss
3-11,[any] (9 * 20 = 180 possibilities) = hit
12-20,1-2 (9 * 2 = 18 possibilities) = hit
12-20,3-20 (9 * 18 = 162 possibilites) = crit
thus,
P(miss) = 40/400 = 10%
P(regular hit) = 198/400 = 49.5%
P(crit) = 162/400 = 40.5%
(13.5 * .495) + (25.5 * .405) = 17.01
[repeated calculations for greatsword wielder snipped.]
-Ryan
Ryan Koppenhaver
First Post
Re: No, don't change it
I'd be curious to know where you heard that, Sean. The comments that I've seen from Andy Collins on the matter seem to boil down to "critical hits should be special and exciting, therefore critical hits should be rare."
I think that's a reasonable design goal, but this was a poor way to impement it. A much better system would be to translate some or all base threat ranges and/or threat range multipliers into increased critical multipliers, on a point for point basis. This makes crits rarer, and keeps average damage the same, with only minor side effects. (viz., increased chance of "wasted" damage, changed quantity/difficulty of massive damage saves, and interactions with DR)
seankreynolds said:
I'd be curious to know where you heard that, Sean. The comments that I've seen from Andy Collins on the matter seem to boil down to "critical hits should be special and exciting, therefore critical hits should be rare."
I think that's a reasonable design goal, but this was a poor way to impement it. A much better system would be to translate some or all base threat ranges and/or threat range multipliers into increased critical multipliers, on a point for point basis. This makes crits rarer, and keeps average damage the same, with only minor side effects. (viz., increased chance of "wasted" damage, changed quantity/difficulty of massive damage saves, and interactions with DR)
JoeGKushner
First Post
I never knew that incresed threat rangers were such a problem. In almost every game I've been in, no mages takes the item creation feats.
I also don't have a lot of stores in my games where you walk in and buy magic items.
This makes Keen Weapons rare.
I also don't have a lot of higher level characters in my game.
This makes improved critical rare.
I guess the third option for me would be, "N/A Not applicable to the campaign(s) I've GMed or Played"
I also don't have a lot of stores in my games where you walk in and buy magic items.
This makes Keen Weapons rare.
I also don't have a lot of higher level characters in my game.
This makes improved critical rare.
I guess the third option for me would be, "N/A Not applicable to the campaign(s) I've GMed or Played"
Leopold said:
Careful. This makes 20/x3 and 20/x4 weapons the "best choice" for the critical-based fighter.
20/x2 = +5% more damage, averaged over time.
20/x3 = +10%.
20/x4 = +15%.
19-20/x2 = +10%.
18-20/x2 = +15%.
Doubling the threat range, of course, doubles the damage increment for any weapon.
Adding one still doubles the "20" weapons, but only increases the "19-20" weapons by 1.5x, and the "18-20" by 1.33x.
So, the best weapon choices for the critical-based/finesse style fighter under these rules are... the heavy pick and the scythe? I'm not sure your rule has the game effect that you want.
Xeriar's earlier comment about making 18-20/x2 into 19-20/x3 has a similar problem in changing the balance between weapons... it makes the weapon better than it was. 19-20/x3 is +20%, when it used to be only +15%. Also, remember the lesson of the "CR1" orc warrior with the greataxe. The more x3 and x4 weapons there are, the harder it is to not kill off your players on freakish rolls.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Perhaps a good compromise house rule would be, for lack of a better term, a "partial stack"?
In other words, adding Keen and Improved Crit doesn't double the range; it adds 1. (Which is the same thing for weapons that only crit on a 20, I know, but I think it'll work.)
Basically:
Rapier: crit 18-20.
Rapier with keen or imp. crit.: crit 15-20.
Rapier with both under old system: crit 12-20.
Rapier with both with this house rule: crit 14-20.
I think it's a good middle ground; keeps things from getting as out of hand, but still allows some benefit for having both.
In other words, adding Keen and Improved Crit doesn't double the range; it adds 1. (Which is the same thing for weapons that only crit on a 20, I know, but I think it'll work.)
Basically:
Rapier: crit 18-20.
Rapier with keen or imp. crit.: crit 15-20.
Rapier with both under old system: crit 12-20.
Rapier with both with this house rule: crit 14-20.
I think it's a good middle ground; keeps things from getting as out of hand, but still allows some benefit for having both.
Diminishing Returns
How about this:
The first threat enhancement bonus you have is equal to the threat range on your weapon (3 for a rapier, 2 for a longsword, 1 for a greataxe). Each additional bonus is at -1, so the next bonus a rapier receives is 2, longsword 1, and no benefit for greataxe.
Max Rapier Threat (3.0): 12-20
Max Rapier Threat (3.5): 15-20
Max Rapier Threat (3.x): 13-20
Max Longsword Threat (3.0): 15-20
Max Longsword Threat (3.5): 17-20
Max Longsword Threat (3.x): 18-20
Max Greataxe Threat (3.0): 18-20
Max Greataxe Threat (3.5): 19-20
Max Greataxe Threat (3.x): 19-20
Eh, its probably too much trouble for not much of a problem.
Technik
How about this:
The first threat enhancement bonus you have is equal to the threat range on your weapon (3 for a rapier, 2 for a longsword, 1 for a greataxe). Each additional bonus is at -1, so the next bonus a rapier receives is 2, longsword 1, and no benefit for greataxe.
Max Rapier Threat (3.0): 12-20
Max Rapier Threat (3.5): 15-20
Max Rapier Threat (3.x): 13-20
Max Longsword Threat (3.0): 15-20
Max Longsword Threat (3.5): 17-20
Max Longsword Threat (3.x): 18-20
Max Greataxe Threat (3.0): 18-20
Max Greataxe Threat (3.5): 19-20
Max Greataxe Threat (3.x): 19-20
Eh, its probably too much trouble for not much of a problem.
Technik
Wolfen Priest
First Post
I don't see what's humorous about it (and I sure doubt the fools at WotC do, either). Shelling out ~$90 for 3 books that I have to houserule the hell out of doesn't seem like too good a deal to me, anyway. So far, the few rules changes that I don't disagree with are very minor points IMC (like some of the spell changes), and if I want to house rule them into 3.0e, that would be easier than house-ruling almost everything in 3.5e.
I wish Hasbro would sell D&D to some people who have a clue, or at the very least hire back some of the people whose ideas actually made sense, mathematically or otherwise.Similar Threads
