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

[Hypersmurf]

... just put a note in vorpal that it only activates on the weapon's -natural, unaugmented- crit range. Not too hard at all.

They've actually gone one better than that, and made Vorpal only trigger off a confirmed Natural 20... which is exactly as it should be.

High threat ranges are usually balanced by lower multipliers and therefore lower damage. But Vorpal bypasses the damage mechanic entirely, so it should also ignore the threat range mechanic.

The change to Vorpal is one I agree with completely.

The change to threat ranges I dislike.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Yeah, they should have kept the 3.0 Power Attack and raised the crit range for natural weapons to 19-20.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Re: Re: Re: GRRR!

Who gives a flying frick?

Satori, apparently.

Who gives a flying frick? the sequel.

Me. I do.

One of the things which intially struck me about how nice 3e was was the elegant weapons balance. Swords and axes were exactly equally powerful, but had notably different flavors. Rapiers/Picks were a viable different choice from straight swords and axes, with advantages and disadvantages in roughly equal proportions. Exotic weapons were better than martial weapons in particular ways. There was a point to two-handed weapons, and a point to medium-sized one-handed weapons, and a point to small one-handed weapons.

You could make a character -- or advise one of your players to make a character -- broadly according to the player's conception of what that character ought to carry, without either the AD&D2 deal of making everyone who didn't use longswords take an efficiency hit, nor the "light system" method of declaring all weapons to be roughly the same.

Throwing out that balance (and for what?) strikes me as removing one of the best-thought-out pieces of 3e. And don't discount it as a matter of fractional points. The difference between a scythe that criticals on a 16-20 (with weapon-master), and a falchion that criticals on a 14-20 (also with weapon-master, and the lame proposed "always gives a +1 to thresh" rule) is in the range of several points of expected damage per hit (depending on str and magic bonuses).

And, I repeat, for what? What I'd like to ask "Who gives a frik" to is the people who say, "Critting all the time isn't 'special.'" Seriously, who cares? In all the weird travails of D&D, critting 45-55% of your succesful hits is what bothers you? Throwing spells that can kill an entire army is commonplace, being raised from the dead is a weekly occurance, the gods channeling miraculous energy to heal you is something that happens after literally almost every single battle, there are sixteen hundred sapient races (most of which can interbreed) and warriors who can be struck by fifty arrows and walk away fine, and none of that's a problem, but critting 55% of the time (as opposed to the 40% of the time that the exact same character in 3.5e would crit, or, if you prefer a core-rules-only analysis, critting 45% of the time as compared to 30% of the time) is what makes you flinch and say, "Well, nobody respects the gravity of the occaision"? Really? Seriously?

 

[Ravellion]

The terminology is "Critical". Not "Pretty much guaranteed damage boost".

And your argument is useless - that same weapon balance is still there - there was no weapon master when you opened your 3.0 book, and there is no weapon master in 3.5 (and with Greater Weapon Specialization now a feat, it has become slightly less attractive.)

Rav

 

[Plane Sailing]

IMO the main problem that comes from high threat ranges is that *all* the base damage is multiplied on the crit. As someone pointed out earlier, that is a big multiplier effect on power attack, especially with the new 2-for-1 idea

Perhaps crits would have been more balanced if they multiplied the weapon dice damage, but all of the bonuses were only added once. Thus an orc fighter specialised with a greataxe would crit for 3d12 + 5 instead of 3d12+15, a 13 str duellist power attacking for 5 pts with a +5 keen rapier would have a great chance of getting a crit for 2d6 + 11, rather than 2d6+22.

For high level characters (and many low-mid level characters) the amount of bonus they can add to the die roll is at least as significant as the weapon die itself. Making a crit only multiply the basic damage die rather than all the straight numerical bonuses would reduce damage output somewhat (from the big monsters too!), make fights last a little longer and be an all round good thing. We could then still have keen and improved critical stack without vast amounts of damage being handed out.

Cheers

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: GRRR!

One of the WANGERS which intially WANGERED me about how WANGER 3WANGER was was the elegant WANGER balance. Swords and WANGERS were exactly equally WANGER, but had notably WANGER WANGERS . Rapiers/WANGERS were a viable different WANGER from straight WANGER and WANGER, with advantages and disadvantages in roughly equal WANGER. Exotic WANGERS were better than martial WANGERS in particular WANGERS . There was a point to two-handed WANGER, and a point to medium-sized one-handed WANGERS, and a point to small one-handed WANGERS.

You could make a WANGER -- or advise one of your players to make a WANGER -- broadly according to the player's conception of what that WANGER ought to carry, without either the AD&D2 WANGER of making every WANGER who didn't use long WANGERS take an efficiency WANGER, nor the "WANGER system" method of declaring all WANGERS to be roughly the same.

Throwing out that WANGER (and for what?) WANGERS me as removing one of the best-WANGERED pieces of 3WANGER. And don't disWANGER it as a matter of fractional WANGERS. The difference between a WANGER that WANGERS on a 16-20 (with WANGER-master), and a WANGER that WANGERS on a 14-20 (also with WANGER-master, and the lame proposed "always WANGERS a +1 to thresh" WANGER) is in the range of several points of expected damage per WANGER (depending on str and magic WANGERS).

And, I WANGER, for what? What I'd like to WANGER "Who gives a WANGER" to is the WANGERS who say, "WANGERING all the time isn't WANGER.'" Seriously, who WANGERS? In all the weird WANGERS of DWANGERD, critting 45-55% of your succesful WANGERS is what WANGERS you? Throwing WANGERS that can WANGER an entire army is commonWANGER, being WANGERED from the dead is a weekly WANGER, the gods WANGERING miraculous energy to WANGER you is something that happens after literally almost every single WANGER, there are sixteen hundred WANGER races (most of which can interbreed) and warriors who can be struck by fifty WANGERS and walk away fine, and none of WANGERS a problem, but WANGERING 55% of the time (as opposed to the 40% of the time that the exact same WANGER in 3.5e would WANGER, or, if you prefer a core-rules-only WANGER, WANGERING 45% of the time as compared to 30% of the time) is what makes you WANGER and say, "Well, nobody WANGERS the gravity of the occaision"? Really? Seriously?

Indeed.


Hong "I am especially taken by WANGERING 45% of the time" Ooi

 

[green slime]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GRRR!

Indeed.


Hong "I am especially taken by WANGERING 45% of the time" Ooi

Real funny hong

Real... mature like... adds a whole lot to the discussion, dude.



Plain Sailing that was a house rule instituted by some friends of mine in their campaign, for 3e. I think I'll be using it for 3.5, and keep Keen and Imp Crit stacking.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GRRR!

Real funny hong

Real... mature like... adds a whole lot to the discussion, dude.

Hello, green slime! Welcome to our friendly mailing list!

 

[isoChron]

What is it good for to have a crit range 12-20 if you hit only with a 15 ??????? OK, every hits is a threat but what ?
Let's crit all time against lowlevel enemies. That only reflects the classic fencing with the "I hit once and always the heart because I'm an experienced fencer" ...

BYE

 

[Plane Sailing]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GRRR!

Plain Sailing that was a house rule instituted by some friends of mine in their campaign, for 3e. I think I'll be using it for 3.5, and keep Keen and Imp Crit stacking.

Interesting (and encouraging) that others have already tried this idea. Presumably they have found no problems with it then.

Cheers