D&D 3.x [3.5] Crit stacking?

[Mike Sullivan]

Re: Re: Re: GRRR!

But this sort of thing only crops up when you are talking about relatively high level characters. Basically, a combat oriented character who is 8th or 9th level should be really good at combat, and that includes scoring critical hits on a regular basis that the common warrior only dreams of making.

And it involves using a high crit-thresh weapon, which is a flatly bad choice at lower than level 8, and is only very arguably a good choice once you start getting crit thresh increases. And if you take keen, it probably involves lowering your total damage output.

Again, okay, I get what people are talking about when they say that a critical hit doesn't feel like a hugely big deal when roughly half of your hits are critical. But, again, of all the commonplace miracles in D&D, critical hits are what triggers that reaction? That just baffles me.

 

[Technik4]

I think its partly because the intent of the critical threat/hit was for it to be a fairly rare thing. Mind you, because of the way the rules were written in bceame something else, basically one of the few ways a dex-based fighter could get his licks in, as well as adding a great balance to the different weapons.

They are revising it to go back to the intent, which is critical hits are rare and somewhat special. The reason they are supposed to be like that is because most of the MM, most NPCs, basically any opposition the PCs face will almost never have crit ranges nearly as good. Thus, while it becomes a commonplace thing for the PCs to do double damage, if they "fixed" it by letting the opposition do the same (which is logical) PCs death rates would rise and the game would be less fun.

Technik

 

[RigaMortus]

Errrr, I always thought you must hit first and then you can see if it is a threat/crit.
Only exception is the natural 20 (always a hit).

So if you role a 19 on your longsword attack but that isn't enough to hit the AC of the opponent you can forget your threat/crit. You don't do any damage. On a natural 20 you have a hit AND a threat (if the foe is vulnerable to crits).

On the other hand, if you need a 15 to hit someone, and you have a crit range of 12-20 with a Melee Attack of +14, and you roll a 13 for your first attack and a measily 5 for your "confirmation" hit (to confirm the crit) that is still a 19, which beats the AC 15. So what's the points? I don't know... What was your point?

 

[Tzarevitch]

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.

Honestly, I dislike the change to the threat range AND I think Vorpal was not changed enough. Personally the only reason I think threat ranges were a problem in 3.0 was the fact that Vorpal was too powerful. As written, the property is more powerful than epic weapon properties, especially if you have it on a wide-threat weapon and can increase the threat range. Even critting only on a 20, it is the only instant death-no save weapon property that exists and it has only one real defense that characters can employ: Great Fortification.

I have never permitted Vorpal weapons in any campaign I have ever run and I never will. In my current game I house-ruled Vorpal to increase the weapon's crit multiplier by x2 and reduced its cost to +4. Fortification in my campaign reduces a weapon's multiplier by the cost of the fortification (Light =1, Medium =3, Heavy =5) to a minimum of 1x and reduces sneak attack dice by the same rating also to a minimum of 1. That way fortification doesn't render rogues of all levels absolutely useless.

As far as threat ranges go, I would've preferred 3.5 do it the way Star Wars does in that all additions to a weapon's threat range only increase the range by one per addition. I think the non-stacking is a total cop-out although I reserve final judgment until I see how they handle the handful of classes that gain class abilities to increase threat ranges.

Tzarevitch

 

[Destil]

I really dislike this change. I don't want to see a scabbard of keen edges replace one of the highest level feats in the game (really how many others require +8 BAB?). But since they don't stack there's no longer any reason to take both, and it's a lot easier to have someone make you the scabbard and use the feat someplace else (unless it's been priced far far higher). Likewise since the scabbard is basicly slotless (you don't need to wear it for the benifit) pick up two and never worry about keen edge. And since so many spell durations have gone down you'll most likely see many many partys resting far more often, and a single scabbard could for all the encounters in a day.

In short, unless you ditch the keen edge spell, scabbard and weapon enhancement you'll just see spells replacing the feat, which is a bad thing, IMHO. And a big threat range was never a problem in the first place. Annoying, mabye, but not umbalanced given the cost.

 

[Destil]

I have never permitted Vorpal weapons in any campaign I have ever run and I never will. In my current game I house-ruled Vorpal to increase the weapon's crit multiplier by x2 and reduced its cost to +4. Fortification in my campaign reduces a weapon's multiplier by the cost of the fortification (Light =1, Medium =3, Heavy =5) to a minimum of 1x and reduces sneak attack dice by the same rating also to a minimum of 1. That way fortification doesn't render rogues of all levels absolutely useless.

As far as threat ranges go, I would've preferred 3.5 do it the way Star Wars does in that all additions to a weapon's threat range only increase the range by one per addition. I think the non-stacking is a total cop-out although I reserve final judgment until I see how they handle the handful of classes that gain class abilities to increase threat ranges.

Vorpal, from what I've read, was fixed on it's own. It's a natural 20 only effect no, no matter what your threat range.

The problem with that is, if memory serves, in SW no weapon has a crit multiplier above x2 (because this is very deadly with their VP/WP system). And while +1 for everything sounds nice at first in effect you're giving the person with an axe or scythe no downtweek vs. taking away 2/3rds of the power these bonuses would offer someone with a raiper or falchion.

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: GRRR!

Again, okay, I get what people are talking about when they say that a critical hit doesn't feel like a hugely big deal when roughly half of your hits are critical. But, again, of all the commonplace miracles in D&D, critical hits are what triggers that reaction? That just baffles me.

Right. And the thing that Andy (and many other apparently) have forgotten is that a 10th level fighter with a keen sword and the Improved Cirtical feat is pretty "special" just to begin with. In a typical D&D campaign world he's probably one of the five most skilled combatants in any city he happens to be in. His ability to inflict serious injuries with his weapon should relfect this fact.

While critical hits may not be a "special" event for him, that's because he's "special" to begin with. Plus, compare him to a 10th level wizard or cleric and the ability to get a x2 critical hit on a regular basis will seem pretty mundane.

 

[Technik4]

Right. And the thing that Andy (and many other apparently) have forgotten is that a 10th level fighter with a keen sword and the Improved Cirtical feat is pretty "special" just to begin with. In a typical D&D campaign world he's probably one of the five most skilled combatants in any city he happens to be in. His ability to inflict serious injuries with his weapon should relfect this fact.

And it does. I mean seriously if you are comparing a 10th level adventurer to a 3rd level knight errant or a 5th level captain of the gates, the 10th level fighter will cream them. Because of high BAB, higher level fighters always have more ability "to inflict serious injuries with his weapon" - it is already reflected by iterative attacks.

Not to mention new feats like Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. Granted, they aren't teeming with flavor but they get the job done, allowing fighters of higher levels to do more damage.

Crit stacking was a mechanical manipulation of the rules (that were not intended) that yielded a result easily explainable in the game, but still presenting a logical fallacy. The fact that it has been "fixed" (if it was ever broken) only means it now represents what it was supposed to represent, a special "cricital" hit.

Consider a professional gambler. Is he any more lucky when he plays poker? Are his chances any higher than a tourist in Vegas? Well, to a small extent yes. The professional gambler has probably mathematically worked out the best possible hands, and may be counting cards - consider that a Keen or Improved Critical effect. However he doesn't get 4 of-a-kind every other hand.

While the above analogy is not perfect, it conveys my general feeling with regards to critical hits.

Technik

 

[ZSutherland]

Technik4 -

Not to pick a fight, but your analogy is far from "not perfect." It's horribly flawed, because, while there's arguably some skill in gambling, it's mostly luck. Luck, however, plays only a marginal role in combative abilities of someone of the skill and experience represented by a 10th level fighter in D&D. Luck does play a part in our representation as players of that fighter because we determine all mechanical outcomes with dice (a random/luck based medium) which are tempered with constants designed to show the proficiency of the character. Thus, a higher level fighter nearly always hits with his first attack because he's so good that luck plays a very small part in the determination.

A better example would be: Imagine a very skilled guitarist (our fighter) who has chosen to focus his time and study on rapid, finger-picking styles of play (he opted to be a dex fighter). If he picks up an old catalog guitar, cheap but functional, can he pick out a pretty good tune? Yes, he can because the skills in his fingers, not the guitar (he has improved criticals.) However, if he goes and gets his Martin (keen w/ good base crit range) and an amp and a stage, he can put on a concert that will draw a large audience. Why? Because he can pick up any guitar (he's proficienct in all martial & simple weapons) and play due to his level of general expertise, but he's spent the most time and effort with his Martin and it's the type of guitar (rapier/falchion/scimitar) which is most suited to his style.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean anything in the face of game balance or what have you, but it's a better analogy.

Z

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Crit stacking was a mechanical manipulation of the rules (that were not intended)

What support do you have for that statement? I find it wildly difficult to believe that in the whole of the playtesting of 3.0, nobody ever came up with the idea of stacking keen and imp. crit.

Rather, I think that keen and imp. crit were very much intended to stack. Perhaps it has now been used more often than the initial designers had forseen -- but that has a lot to do with how people don't understand the rules very well (witness the number of people who are convinced that the falchion is miles better than the scythe), and nothing to do with either whether or not the rules are broken or the intent of the designers.

that yielded a result easily explainable in the game, but still presenting a logical fallacy.

A "logical fallacy"? What kind of logical fallacy is that?

Consider a professional gambler. Is he any more lucky when he plays poker? Are his chances any higher than a tourist in Vegas? Well, to a small extent yes. The professional gambler has probably mathematically worked out the best possible hands, and may be counting cards - consider that a Keen or Improved Critical effect. However he doesn't get 4 of-a-kind every other hand.

He could if he shuffled the cards himself (and was dumb enough to cheat like that).

Being that the Nevada Gaming Comission doesn't regulate fighters getting critical hits, I don't think that fighters would object to, uh, stacking their own decks.

That sounds dirty.