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

[Mike Sullivan]

He might with his worst attack, especially at higher levels. A 20th level fighter with +38 to hit, vs. AC 39, would need a 16 or better to hit with his fourth attack.

Yes, he would. On the other hand, that's not going to be a very significant amount of difference:

If the fighter's modified damage is "d," before crits, and he's a got a 15-20/x2 crit range, and has +38 to hit vs. AC 39, then his correct total damage will be:

.95 * 1.3 * d + .75 * 1.3 * d + .5 * 1.3 * d + .25 * 1.25 * d = 3.1725d

His naively calculated incorrect damage would be:

.95 * 1.3 * d + .75 * 1.3 * d + .5 * 1.3 * d + .25 * 1.3 * d = 3.185d

In other words, you'd be overcalculating his damage by approximately .4%. While I'm admittedly a stickler for accuracy, and would use the correct formula for this if it ever came up in my examples, I think that ultimately anyone who's optimizing for fractions of a percentile point in D&D is going to be dissappointed by their divergence from the statistical mean anyhow.

 

[Grog]

Ok, slight rant here about energy protection vs immune to criticals.

-Most monsters of CR 5 or higher have some kind of elemental protection, be it racial, magical, from an item they are wearing, whatever.

I don't know where you're getting this, but it's absolutely not true IME (I don't have the MM with me to check). There are plenty of CR 5+ monsters with no elemental resistances at all. Also, "some kind of elemental resistance" does not equal "resistance to all elements."

-There are races with inherent energy protection for as little as ECL +1. Additionally there are feats which grant Energy Protection 5 as long as you have a high fortitude.

No feat I'm aware of in the core rules does this. And how common are those ECL +1 races in the opponents parties tend to fight, anyway? Also, energy resistance 5 is only of limited use against energy damage from weapons, as I'll get to in a moment.

-Almost all the elemental energy damage from a weapon can be countered by a first level spell which lasts 24 hours.

First, Endure Elements only protects against one type of energy. Second, many monsters don't have access to even first level spells.

And third, Endure Elements only offers 5 points of elemental resistance per round. Not per attack. Per round. So if you have more than one attack, some of your elemental damage is going to get through the resistance unless you roll very poorly. If your opponent is getting three or four hits per round, that's 3 or 4d6 of elemental damage. Elemental resistance 5 will help against that, true, but it's hardly the iron defense you seem to be claiming it is.

Also, I believe Endure Elements has been nerfed in 3.5.

-While certain types of monsters inherently have an immunity to criticals, it is never a class ability, nor a racial ability. Additionally, the magic items that give critical protection do so in percentages, and it is far more expensive than elemental protections.

Percentages up to 100%. And the most elemental protection you can get from a magic item in the core rules is 30 points per round. Now, that's more than enough to stop that fighter's flaming weapon, but what if his buddy the wizard hits you with a fireball first? You probably won't have too much in the way of resistance left.

Also, it's not "far more expensive" to get immunity to critical hits. The most it can ever cost is 75,000 gp (if you add Heavy Fortification to +5 armor). It can cost as little as 35,000 gp. By contrast, a ring of major elemental resistance (resistance 30) costs 24,000 gp (I think - going by memory here). And that's 24,000 gp to get you 30 points of resistance to one element. Your ring of major fire resistance won't do you much good against that guy with a shocking greatsword, will it?

So, for roughly the same amount of money it would take to get 30 points of resistance to two or three elements out of five in the core rules (leaving aside the fact that you can't wear three magic rings), you can gain complete immunity to all critical hits from any opponent you will ever face. And as a bonus, you get immunity to sneak attack, too.

If I had to choose between those two options, I know which one I'd pick.

By and large, energy protection is easier to come by than immunity (or even partial immunity) to critical hits. Especially since it only takes 5 points of energy protection to shut down an energy weapon.

As has been shown above, both these statements are incorrect.

 

[Storm Raven]

Ok, slight rant here about energy protection vs immune to criticals.

-Most monsters of CR 5 or higher have some kind of elemental protection, be it racial, magical, from an item they are wearing, whatever.

Wrong. Most monsters of CR 5 or higher don't have energy protection against every particular type of energy. As the wielder of an energy enhanced weapon, you only have to worry about creatures with immunity to the energy type of your weapon, a very small fraction of the creatures you face.

-There are races with inherent energy protection for as little as ECL +1. Additionally there are feats which grant Energy Protection 5 as long as you have a high fortitude.

Yes there are. And they have to choose the specific energy type you use. Thus, if you have a shocking weapon, the fact that a fire giant has fire resistance is irrelevant.

-Almost all the elemental energy damage from a weapon can be countered by a first level spell which lasts 24 hours.

Provided (a) your opponent or his ally prepared that spell; (b) your opponent chose the type of energy you use, and (c) decided to cast it in time.

-While certain types of monsters inherently have an immunity to criticals, it is never a class ability, nor a racial ability. Additionally, the magic items that give critical protection do so in percentages, and it is far more expensive than elemental protections.

Umm, have you ever read the elemental bloodline feat? Did you even pay attention when you read through materials like Races of Faerun?

-There is no spell which grants immunity to critical hits, certainly not one at 1st level.

Sure.

By and large, energy protection is easier to come by than immunity (or even partial immunity) to critical hits. Especially since it only takes 5 points of energy protection to shut down an energy weapon.

Except that this only applies to (a) opponents who are spellcasters, (b) who have prepared the spell ahead of time, (c) who chose the right energy type to resist.

Since we're talking about a rogue, they dont have access to the longsword, the biggest weapon they can use is in fact a rapier.

Right. So? This is an attribute of the rogue class, not the attributes of the weapons. The rapier is the only medium sized martial weapon on the rogue proficiency list. The fact that it is a better weapon than other rogue choices is not going to change. Martial weapons are flat-out better than simple weapons, that's a fact of life.

But the rapier is no more or less effective as a weapon than a longsword.

This may be why you see a lot of rogues with rapiers, why rogues with rapiers eventually get keen rapiers, and why high level rogues with keen rapiers used to take Imp Crit. Granted, I know this hasn't been *your* experience, and I'm positive my math and logic are horribly skewed, but this has been mine.

They take keen because it seems cool. The simple fact of the matter is that just about every other +1 base enhancement (including just a straight +1 enhancement) is generally a better buy than keen.

Now that we've proven that rogue + rapier + higher crit range = good, lets talk about the finesse fighter. A character with at least a few levels in fighter (so getting some feats is no biggie) who took weapon finesse and is trying to make a strong PC. Since he has weapon finesse and the rapier is the best weapon to be finessed (short of taking exotic weapon proficiency) will this character eventually take Imp Crit and acquire a Keen Rapier? Bing. Yes, he most probably would.

If he has feats to spare. But he's generally better off taking a number of other feats. Improved Critical is pretty far down the list of useful feats to take. After the rogue/fighter takes Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Expertise, and probably Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, then he may want to take Improved Critical, but that's a long list to go through. And that doesn't even begin to consider whether he would want to take anything from Song & Silence or something like that.

If I wanted to make a disarm fighter I would use a flail, a trip fighter I might also go for a flail or a reach weapon, if I'm going sword and board Im taking the best 1-hander I can wield, if I'm going 2-handed the best 2-hander I can wield, and "if I'm going for crits" I will always take the rapier. These are no-brainers.

The only problem with this analysis is that the rapier is no better at critical hits than any other medium martial weapon. You take a flail for a disarm fighter because it is better for disarming than other weapons. You take a guisarme for a trip fighter because you can make trip attacks with it (unlike a glaive, or halberd, which cannot be used to trip).

In terms of dealing out critical hit damage a rapier is identical to a longsword, which is identical to a battlexe, which is identical to a scimitar. The problems you seem to think are a big deal all revolve around the nature of the rogue class, and have nothing to do with the nature of the rapier, the nature of Improved Critical, or the nature of the keen enhancement.

In short, your analysis (and Mike's analysis to the extent that he asserts that taking a rapier is a no-brainer for a critical hit focused fighter) simply doesn't hold water.

 

[drnuncheon]

The problem is that you're leaving out the most important factor, that of hitting in the first place.

No, he's not - he's dividing it out for the purposes of simplicity.

If both sides of the equation have an equal chance to hit - say 75% - then both sides of the equation will be multiplied by .75 to show the average damage per round - but you will still get the same results.

If you were comparing keen to +1, then you would need to take the chance to hit into account, because it changes between the two sides - but when the chance to hit is equal on either side of the equation, then you do not need to consider it at all - it cancels out.

Remember, these equations aren't to solve 'how much damage does it do in a round', they are to solve 'what damage bonus makes it better to use weapon X over weapon Y'?

J

 

[Spatula]

Ok, slight rant here about energy protection vs immune to criticals.

Their relaitve usefulness really depends on what the DM is throwing at the players. If you're facing lots of undead, keen is not going to help you at all. If you're facing lots of outsiders, your flame blade probably won't be doing much extra damage - although that depends on what kinds of outsiders you're dealing with, really (and there are other types of elemental weapon abilities).

-While certain types of monsters inherently have an immunity to criticals, it is never a class ability, nor a racial ability. Additionally, the magic items that give critical protection do so in percentages, and it is far more expensive than elemental protections.

Elemental protections from what source? Resistance for your armor is a +3 cost adjustment, for resistance 10 vs. one kind of energy damage. That's the same as moderate fortification (75% to ignore crits). Full fortification (100%) is a +5 ability, and light fortification (25%) is a +1. The actual cost will depend on what else has been added to the armor. Rings are a bit cheaper, 16000 for a resistance of 15 (for one type of damage), or 24000 for resistance 30 vs one type. Still not exactly cheap, and of course you can only wear two rings.

-There is no spell which grants immunity to critical hits, certainly not one at 1st level.

None at 1st level, but there are higher level spells that do give the target immunity to crits - for example, Iron Body.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

In short, your analysis (and Mike's analysis to the extent that he asserts that taking a rapier is a no-brainer for a critical hit focused fighter) simply doesn't hold water.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (I haven't been following your and Technik's discussion).

If I personally were going to make a fighter who, for flavor reasons, focused on making critical hits, I'd probably use a heavy pick (if I wanted to use a shield) or a scythe (if I wanted to increase my damage output).

If I wanted to make a fighter who was very good at putting out damage, I'd use a greatsword. If I wanted to make a fighter who was a good balance between offense and defense, I'd use a bastard sword, long sword, war axe, or battle axe, and a shield.

In all cases, I would certainly pick up Improved Critical for my weapon of choice (not in preference to Weapon Specialization, but in addition to it). I would probably not pick up keen until and unless I had the expectation that my weapon would already be at +5 enhancement bonus (either natively or through GMW), and if I had the heavy pick or rapier, until my expected pre-critical damage was upwards of 20 points.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not sure what you mean by this (I haven't been following your and Technik's discussion).

Sorry about that. Technik quoted you and then went on to say something himself. When I went to reply, the formatting made it look like you said it. Looking back at his post now, I see that this silly statement was his.

His silly statement was effectviely: "If I'm going to make a critical hit based character it is a no-brainer to focus on the rapier, just like one would focus on the flail for a disarm focused character".

Of course, his analysis leaves out the fact that the rapier is no better a weapon for a critical his based character than any number of other martial weapons. He is focused on threat range, but ignores base damage dice and critical hit multipliers in his analysis.

In all cases, I would certainly pick up Improved Critical for my weapon of choice (not in preference to Weapon Specialization, but in addition to it).

Right, but that is because fighters have lots of feats to spend. If you had more limited feats, you'd probably be better off with Specialization first and worrying about Improved Critical later.

I would probably not pick up keen until and unless I had the expectation that my weapon would already be at +5 enhancement bonus (either natively or through GMW), and if I had the heavy pick or rapier, until my expected pre-critical damage was upwards of 20 points.

A point I have made to Technik, but he refuses to understand. Keen is not that powerful of an enhancement, you are better off with most of the other +1 enhancements in preference to keen. But in his mind, keen is the ultra-uber attribute, despite the fact that the actual evidence demonstrates otherwise.

 

[drnuncheon]

His silly statement was effectviely: "If I'm going to make a critical hit based character it is a no-brainer to focus on the rapier, just like one would focus on the flail for a disarm focused character".

Speaking as a person with a keen rapier and improved crit - I took keen deliberately, even knowing that it was less effective. Why? Because I like the visceral 'YEAH!' of getting a crit. A completely harmless reaction, I do less damage, and I'm

Now, 3.5 takes that away, and I am doing more damage (presuming I trade it in for another +1) but I am

And it's all because of perception. Some people perceived that stacking keen and Imp Crit was 'too good', and they were so it got nerfed...even when it didn't need to be.

J

 

[Grog]

And it's all because of perception. Some people perceived that stacking keen and Imp Crit was 'too good', and they were so it got nerfed...even when it didn't need to be.

Actually, the stated reason for the change was because Andy Collins didn't think crits were "special" enough.

 

[Technik4]

But in his mind, keen is the ultra-uber attribute, despite the fact that the actual evidence demonstrates otherwise.

No, I never said keen is the ultra-uber attribute. In my mind, it is not the ultra-uber attribute.

Check master of the wild for a feat which grants elemental resistance 5 if you have fort 8+.

I agree, there are more types of energies which can make it difficult to have the right one for the right encounter. On the whole, in most campaigns, yes it is better off having Crit Immunity than one specific Elemental Immunity, but I maintain that the elemental ones come easier through prcs and whatnot.

I also had forgotten that multiple hits from an elemental weapon all stack for elemental damages. However in the core books 3.0 there were only 3 elements you could place on a weapon ice shock and fire. Those are quite common in the MM (esp fire), as are Rings of Fire Resistance, etc.

Of course, his analysis leaves out the fact that the rapier is no better a weapon for a critical his based character than any number of other martial weapons.

Except, as we just talked about, the rogue whose best proficiency is actually with the rapier. Oh, but who would want to make a "precise hit" rogue? Nevermind.

You seem to be more interested in bandying about random statements than truly discussing things. I recognize that the weapons have been balanced so that for the most part they all gain the same benefit from keen. However if you had looked at the math in this thread you would see that high crit ranges and high crit multipliers overtake weapons like the longsword once your damage potential is high enough.

A core finesse fighter who is going the route of the duelist will almost always take the rapier, and in 3.0, always take keen and Imp Crit.

A rogue who is combat-focused (but not a 2wf) will almost always end up taking the rapier, and in 3.0 Keen and Imp Crit.

As Mike said, there is more than one way to keen a blade.

I dont even know what is being argued anymore. I expressed most of my views at least a page ago, at this point its time to accept that the game has changed. Im not bitter, but it sounds like you better start spending some charges of your Rule 0 Wand.

Technik