D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Crit stacking?

[Technik4]

And as for the person who claims that WotC has to idiot proof their rules to preemptively balance every potential idea some company out there has for a kewl powerup, that is patently ridiculous. They need to concern themselves with thier OWN rules, no one elses.

Idiot-proof? No. Any idiot can still write a rule and put up on a d&d forum as game material. However you can look towards the future, and gain insight from the past. They have released a lot of books in 3 years, some of the material has been a little over the top, some of it ridiculously weak, and a lot of it in a median somewhere.

If possible (and I believe it most certainly is) you should look for rules which allow expansion of ideas, while not necessarily expanding them in the core rules. For instance, now WotC can make "Greater Critical" which will stack with Improved Critical, or even "Epic Critical", whereas before these feats would have been pushing an already maxed category. And please, don't ask why they would nerf something in the core rules only to expand the rule in a supplement. Many people play a base game off the core rules, and many people are going for a smaller power level than say FR.

I'd also like to point out the originally written Bladed Gauntlets were quite a "broken" subject until errata. Also, you only looked at WotC supplements, take a look at some 3rd party stuff and you will see the trend continues. I'm also sure there are more crit games in OA.

Planesailing:

I like the sound of that! It allows for all adventurers to become a little more deadly (in general) at higher levels. The only problem is its about as useful as Weapon Focus for all weapons, so its pretty much a must-have for any weapon-based character. Still not a big deal, esp if it doesnt stack with Keen it presents a nice high level feat for everyone.

Technik

 

[Taren Seeker]

Idiot-proof? No. Any idiot can still write a rule and put up on a d&d forum as game material. However you can look towards the future, and gain insight from the past. They have released a lot of books in 3 years, some of the material has been a little over the top, some of it ridiculously weak, and a lot of it in a median somewhere.

Not to disparage any 3rd party designers out there, but I've seen some pretty idiotic things in those materials. I don't see why WotC should take them into consideration when cleaning up their own core rules.

If possible (and I believe it most certainly is) you should look for rules which allow expansion of ideas, while not necessarily expanding them in the core rules. For instance, now WotC can make "Greater Critical" which will stack with Improved Critical, or even "Epic Critical", whereas before these feats would have been pushing an already maxed category. And please, don't ask why they would nerf something in the core rules only to expand the rule in a supplement. Many people play a base game off the core rules, and many people are going for a smaller power level than say FR.

Expansion of ideas? WotC has just guaranteed that almost no-one will take improved crit when they have access to a 3rd level spell, an inexpensive magic item or a keen weapon. Combining this ruling with the new power attack and DR rules and they have also guaranteed that finesse fighters will never even approach the effectiveness of the high-strength tank. That sounds like a restriction of ideas to me.

As many have demonstrated, allowing imp crit and keen to stack does not create a high powered game. In fact, having (for example) a 12-20 threat range on a falchion only allows it to keep up with heavier, lower threat weapons like the greatsword and greataxe. This is not power inflation, it's parity. So yes, I will ask the question: why wipe out a core rule that was AFAICT well recieved? To create a hole for a supplement to fill?

And BTW, in Andy Collin's own words they didn't think 12-20 was too powerful, but that it just wasn't "special". Bah.

I'd also like to point out the originally written Bladed Gauntlets were quite a "broken" subject until errata. Also, you only looked at WotC supplements, take a look at some 3rd party stuff and you will see the trend continues. I'm also sure there are more crit games in OA.

I fail to see what bladed gauntlets have to do with anything. Regardless of imp crit and keen, the BG broke the weapon balance rules. As for not looking at other supplements, that was my point. WotC should worry about the rules they have created and no one else's, and the core rules should not change in response to a power or effect from an outside product, unless it's to steal good OGL material. Re: OA having more crit games, unless you're looking at the reprint of the S&F Weapon Master then not to my knowledge and I'm pretty familiar with the book. If you know of something please point it out.

In conclusion, I can't see any real justification for nerfing the rule, except for the stated "specialness". That's not good enough for me. I think my group will do exactly what Monte Cook predicted, and that's raid 3.5 for house rules. Unfortunately, I am also heavily involved with Living Campaigns that will run the rules as written so I am stuck with some really poorly thought out changes.

 

[Grog]

To the argument comparing not stacking Improved Critical with Keen being like not stacking Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with Enhancement Bonuses, I have got to say that such a comparison is ridiculous.

Actually, it's not. It's perfectly on point.

Improved Critical is the skill to make more critical hits, but the Keen ability overrides it due to the fact that it does it its own way, meaning the skill logically will not have MORE effect that way.

Logically, can you explain why a character who was skilled at striking precisely for greater effect would suddenly lose that skill the moment he picked up a magically sharpened sword?

Because that's all a keen weapon is - a magically sharpened weapon. The Keen ability doesn't "do things its own way" - all it means is that the weapon is sharper.

Last but certainly not least, the most important logic of all behind the threat range increases not stacking is simply one of PURE AND SIMPLE BALANCE.

Except that, as has been proven many times on these boards, stacking Improved Critical and Keen was not unbalanced.

 

[Grog]

You can't throw out material you don't own. 3rd party supplements have also released materials which have upped the crit ante. Its all well and good to say "ignore that, its not core" but that isnt really what d&d 3e and d20 were meant to be. The core rules should be balanced within themselves and be balanced with the addition of WotC supplements as well as balanced 3rd party supplements.

So, if I put out a d20 supplement with a class that gained the ability, at 1st level, to cast Fireball once per round as a free action an unlimited number of times per day, WotC would have to change Fireball to 1d2 damage per level and reduce it to a 5' area of effect?

That's ridiculous. The core rules should be concerned with balance only within the core rules themselves. Any 3rd party supplements are optional, and if they're unbalanced, the answer is very simple - don't use them. Trying to balance the myriad of 3rd party material by changing the core rules is not only dumb, it's futile.

 

[Technik4]

Beating a Dead Horse

The core rules should be concerned with balance only within the core rules themselves.

Look, when I say that the core rules should be made with expansion in mind, I mean that they should have logical rule systems and sub-systems that are modular in nature.

IOW, I dont think either the new rule nor the old was very modular. The old rule allowed stacking with 2 things, and implied that any other stacking wouldn't stack. The new rule disallows the one exception, and says that nothing else stacks. Neither of these seem to take their own supplements nor any other 3rd party supplements into account as there are now many people scratching their head about Weapon Master's improved critical class feature.

3e and d20 were a vision of a unified community, to make a rule-set that is purposely unwieldy to expand is idiocy.

Note: I dont think 3e is very unwieldy to expand, but there are some sore spots. All I was saying is the revision should have gone over said sore spots and smoothed them over, which in many cases they did. But not with regards to crit-stacking.

Technik

 

[isoChron]

What prevents third party publishers to reinstall the great crit range with something like elven light longsword 1d8 18-20/x2 or a finessable battleaxe with 1d8 19-20/x3 ??????
With that higher starting crit range x3-weapons are better of than with impr. crit and keen.....

Not special enough .... pfffffffff

BYE

 

[Elderleaf]

I'm kind of torn with the issue, there are good points and bad points to it.

However overall, I think it was fine the way it was.

Yeah a player could end up with a weapon that was a Crit on a 12, but thats why there are so many creatures that are Immune to Critical Attacks and there are items in game like Half plate of High Fortitude(100% Crit Immunity) or Studded Leather of Light Fortitude(25% Crit Immunity) which greatly reduce the threat of Criticals on your npc's.

IMO its just one more control that the DM has been removed from his/her thought process, I no longer have to worry or put as much thought into what mobs I will throw at my parties because of the change to Crit Stacking. I'm not so sure I like having that control removed from the discretion of the DM and put into a hard rule change in the Core Books.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Energy and skill can combine, while a magical "effect" and skill would not necessarily. (There are of course exceptions to every rule.)

Um?

As has been pointed out, the Keen effect is neither energy or skill. It makes a weapon "magically keen" - ie, sharp.

And regardless, there are plenty of examples of magic and skill combining.

Someone with 20 ranks in Jump and a Ring of Jumping gains a +30 Competence (ie, skill) bonus to Jump checks... a magical effect that stacks with their +20 from ranks, +2 from Synergy, and +4 from Strength. The magical effect (+30) doesn't override their trained skill (+26) - the two combine.

Just as Improved Critical and Keen combine as written in 3.0.

-Hyp.

 

[Arc]

Has anyone actually done the math for the damage loss/gain for these various critical setups? It's logical that cutting the improved critical & keen stacking weakens high crit range weapons, but by how much?

 

[tomBitonti]

Some calculations

This is all off-the-cuff. My apologies for mistakes.

Some calculations appear below ... the upshot appears immediately:

I have only included in my calculations details for CR 18-20,
19-20, and 20. Unfortunately, when the CR becomes wide,
the calculations become a bit messy.

For total damage expectation:

When you have a small (5%) chance to hit, a (20 x4) weapon
is better than a (20, x3) weapon, and a (20 x3) weapon
is better than either a (19-20 x2) or a (18-20 x2) weapon.
This is of course, as in this case the critical multiplier is all
that matters.

The 10% chance to hit case is somewhat messy.

When you have a (15%) or better chance to hit a (20 x3)
weapon is the same as a (19-20 x2) weapon, and a (20 x4)
weapon is the same as a (18-20 x2) weapon.

The calculations show that, aside from changes to the
shape of the damage curve, that increasing either the
critical range with a critical multiplier of 2, or increasing
the critical multipler (with a critical range of 20) are the
same.

The calculations suggest that increasing --both-- the
critical range and the critical multipler is a bad idea, as
the benefits multiply. As the pattern of values from
the PHB suggests, the initial weapons do not ever have
a CM of anything by x2 when the CR is wider than 20,
and the CR is always 20 when the CM is more than x3.

Note that there is an alternative way to do the critical rolls
which gives the same critical results. Always roll two dice,
and if the first dice is a hit, the hit is a critical hit if the second
die is in the critical range. I'm still thinking this through, but
it does seem to give the same results.

============================================================

Here are the summary charts:

AQ == "Attack Quotient" == Chance to hit
CM == Critical Multiplier
CR == Critical Range == Chance to threaten a critical
BDE == Base Damage Expectation

There are two cases:

When:

(AQ == 5) or ((AQ == 10) && (CR > 5))
TDE == ((AQ - AQ * AQ) + (AQ * AQ) * CM)) * BDE
TDE == (AQ + ((AQ * AQ) * (CM - 1))) * BDE

(AQ > 10) or ((AQ == 10) && (CR == 5))
TDE == ((AQ - CR * AQ) + (CR * AQ * CM)) * BDE
TDE == (AQ + ((AQ * CR) * (CM - 1))) * BDE
TDE == (AQ * (1 + CR * (CM - 1))) * BDE

In the first case the critical range has no effect.
The sole benefit from criticals is due to the critical multiplier.

In regards to the second case, note the multiplication:

CR * (CM - 1)

This is interesting, being linear in both critical range and critical
multiplier:

CF (Critical Factor):

CF == CR * (CM - 1)

(CF * 100) Chart:

CM: 2 3 4 5 6
CR: 5 5 10 15 20 25
10 10 20 40
15 15 30
20 20
25 25
30 30

When
(20; x2)
TDE == AQ * (1.05) * BDE
(20; x3)
TDE == AQ * (1.10) * BDE
(20; x4)
TDE == AQ * (1.15) * BDE

(19-20; x2)
TDE == AQ * (1.10) * BDE

(18-20; x2)
TDE == AQ * (1.15) * BDE

BDE Multiplier Chart:

CM: 2 3 4 5 6
CR: 5 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
10 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
15 1.15 1.30 1.45 1.60
20 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
25 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
30 1.30

============================================================

Here are the original calculations:

Representative Weapons:
Dagger 1d4 19-20 x2
Sword 1d8 19-20 x2
BAxe 1d8 20 x3
Scim 1d6 18-20 x2
Scythe 2d4 20 x4

DB (Damage Bonus):

Representative Damage Bonus Range:
-2 0 +2 +4 +6 +8 +10

BDE (Base Damage Expectation):
1d4
1d6
1d8
2d4

DE (Damage Expectation):

DE Chart:

BDE: D4 D6 D8 2D4
DB: -2 1.25 2.00 2.825 3.25
0 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.00
+2 4.50 5.50 6.50 7.00
+4 6.50 7.50 8.50 9.00
+6 8.50 9.50 10.50 11.00
+8 10.50 11.50 12.50 13.00
+10 12.50 13.50 14.50 15.00

CM: Critical Multiplier

x2 x3 x4

CDE (Critical Damage Expectation):

CDE == BDE * CM

CDE Charts may be slightly off for DB == -2.

CDE (x2)

BDE: D4 D6 D8 2D4
DB: -2 2.50 4.00 5.65 6.50
0 5.00 7.00 9.00 10.00
+2 9.00 11.00 13.00 14.00
+4 13.00 15.00 17.00 18.00
+6 17.00 19.00 21.00 22.00
+8 21.00 23.00 25.00 26.00
+10 25.00 27.00 29.00 30.00

CDE (x3)

BDE: D4 D6 D8 2D4
DB: -2 3.75 6.00 8.475 9.75
0 7.50 10.50 13.50 15.00
+2 13.50 16.50 19.50 21.00
+4 19.50 22.50 25.50 27.00
+6 25.50 28.50 31.50 33.00
+8 31.50 34.50 37.50 39.00
+10 37.50 40.50 43.50 45.00

CDE (x4)

BDE: D4 D6 D8 2D4
DB: -2 5.00 8.00 11.30 13.00
0 10.00 14.00 18.00 20.00
+2 18.00 22.00 26.00 28.00
+4 26.00 30.00 34.00 36.00
+6 34.00 38.00 42.00 44.00
+8 42.00 46.00 50.00 52.00
+10 50.00 54.00 58.00 60.00

AC == Armor Class
AB == Attack Bonus

AQ (Attack Quotient):

AQ == (5/100) * min(19, max(1, 10 - AC + AB))
AQ == chance to hit (decimal chance)

AQ * 100 Chart:

AC: 5 10 15 20 25
AB: 0 25 5 5 5 5
5 50 25 5 5 5
10 75 50 25 5 5
15 95 75 50 25 5
20 95 95 75 50 25

AQ * 100 Range:
5 25 50 75 95

CR: Critical Range

CR * 100 Chart:

20 ==> CR 5
19-20 ==> CR 10
18-20 ==> CR 15

CQ (Critical Quotient):

CQ == min(AQ, CR) * AQ
CQ == chance to critical (decimal chance)

When:
AQ == 5:
CQ == AQ * AQ
AQ == 10:
CR == 5:
CQ == CR * AQ
CR > 5:
CQ == AQ * AQ
AQ > 10:
CQ == CR * AQ

CQ * 100 Chart:

AQ: 5 25 50 75 95
CR: 5 0.25 1.25 2.50 3.75 4.75
10 0.25 2.50 5.00 7.50 9.50
15 0.25 3.75 7.50 11.25 14.25

TDE (Total Damage Expectation):

TDE == ((AQ - CQ) * BDE) + (CQ * CDE)
TDE == ((AQ - CQ) * BDE) + (CQ * CM * BDE)
TDE == ((AQ - CQ) + (CQ * CM)) * BDE

When:
(AQ == 5) or ((AQ == 10) && (CR > 5))
TDE == ((AQ - AQ * AQ) + (AQ * AQ) * CM)) * BDE
TDE == (AQ + ((AQ * AQ) * (CM - 1))) * BDE
(AQ > 10) or ((AQ == 10) && (CR == 5))
TDE == ((AQ - CR * AQ) + (CR * AQ * CM)) * BDE
TDE == (AQ + ((AQ * CR) * (CM - 1))) * BDE
TDE == (AQ * (1 + CR * (CM - 1))) * BDE

Variations:

AQ: 5 25 50 75 95
CR: 5 10 15
CM: 2 3 4