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

[Destil]

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.

So... you're saying someone who uses a raiper is 3x as lucky as someone with an axe? Do I get a luck bonus to my saving throws with one, as well?

Criticals are only partily about luck. The're very largly about how easy it is to use a weapon with percision. The sidebar on (non-revised) DMG 63 explains this logic.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

The point was that it appeared that someone previously had stated that if you rolled within your "critical threat" range, then you scored a hit regardless of the AC of the opponent. This is incorrect. You only score a hit when your attack roll meets or exceeds your opponent's AC. If your attack roll would indicate a crtitical threat, but is not high enough to score a hit against your opponent's AC, you do not hit.

 

[satori01]

but it's notably NOT an evil plot to justify the Power Attack change.

I dont recall ever referring to an "evil plot", you making it sound like I'm sitting in a room with tin foil on my head to prevent alien mind reading. I dont,(I wear tin foil on my head because it makes me feel more sexy).

I have not read Mr Collins reasons for the change to crit stacking, so of course I am and have in no way shape or form impuned his honesty or integrity.

Given, though, that Andy Collins is a smart guy and a good game designer, the fact that Power Attack 3.5 could result in huge amounts of extra crit damage probably didnt escape his attention.

Is this his primary reason? I dont know, I dont care, it probably seemed a nice synergy between two changes R&D wanted to make anyway, the fact that changes in 3.5 Power Attack also help support the need for Crit stacking in 3.5 is as I said a nice synergy.

The basic question is do Crits happen to often?

I personaly am not thrilled at crits occuring at super low thresholds making nearly all hits synomonus with crits.

I also am not thrilled at improved critical and keen not stacking as one deals with the physical characteristics of the weapon and the other deals with the skill of the user, and in real life those do stack.
I like to cook, but alas I am self taught and dont have much skill. So to aid me in my cooking preperations I bought a nice set of very very sharp knives.
Now I have a friend that is a chef, and when he was going through cooking school, he couldnt afford very sharp knives, but could cut meat equally as well as I could with inferior equipment due to his better technique and knowledge.
Now when my chef friend uses my knives, man does he fly....

I think my point is pretty obvious, the old rule made sense from a versimiltude perspective. Do rules in a RPG have to make sense, of course not but it is better when they do.

The problem I see with extremely low crit thresholds is due to crit threshold enhancers not adding a straight numerical boost, but instead enhancing a range. Keen and Improved critical if a static number could still stack w/o the constant critical factor.

 

[isoChron]

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.

As far as I know the D&D 3.0 Edition has been playtested mainly in levels below 10 .... I heard it somewhere, can't remember where.

 

[satori01]

burp

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Sure, that increases the frequency by which a high level fighter may hit, but not the impact of such hits. Especially not the impact of a fighter who has specialized in scoring such precise hits.

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.

They "sort of" get the job done, if you take those specific feats. But that is a poor substitute for Improved Coirtical actually working with magic items.

How about this: let's rule that the bonus damage from Weapon Specialization (and subsequent improvements) does not stack with the bonsues to damage from magic items. Let's also rule that the bonus to attack rolls from Weapon Focus also does not stack with masterwork or magic bonuses to attack rolls. Are you okay with that change?

You should be, because it is the same as the change you think is hunky dory for criticals.

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

Umm, now you are just making stuff up. Critical stacking was clearly intended by the rules, since the rules discuss it. Perhaps you should go back and reread your rules. Specifically go reread the description of the feat "Improved Critical".

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

Whcih logical falalcy is that? The logivcal fallacy that those who are highly skilled at something are better at it than those who are not?

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.

No. Now it represents the obviation of the Improved Critical feat.

Consider a professional gambler. Is he any more lucky when he plays poker?

No, he is more skilled. Just like the individual with Improved Critical is more skilled than the individual who does not.

Are his chances any higher than a tourist in Vegas? Well, to a small extent yes.

To a great extent yes. A professional gambler can consistently make money by gambling. A tourist will consistently lose money by gambling (that is how casinos stay in business). The professional gambler is enormously better off than the tourist.

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.

The above analogy not only isn't perfect, it is compeltely irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Critical hits are not the result of "luck" they are the result of skill. Someone who is very good at inflicting critical hits is very good at them. Is Eric Clapton able to turn out a perfect virtuouso guitar solo every time? Are his chances of doing so enormously better than the guy who plays in the high school band down the street? That's the difference, the skill. Your analogy isn't even in the same area code as the actual situation you are trying to analogize.

 

[Tzarevitch]

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.

Yet they already took away 1/3 of the maximum normal threat range for these very same weapons by taking away use of one of the two regular means of expanding the threat range. My argument is simply that allowing multiple increases of a weapons threat range (at +1 apiece) is better than only allowing 1 total effective increase. Here are my reasons why:

1) The problem with 3.0 crits was caused by Vorpal not by wide crit ranges themselves. Vorpal was waaaaaayyyy too powerful in 3.0 to the point that it was more powerful than nearly any epic ability you could put on a sword. Note there is an epic feat that does nearly the same thing but the feat grants a saving throw. Vorpal does not grant a save and is available at much lower levels. Limiting (or removing) Vorpal solves the problem and makes controlling weapon threat ranges unnecessary.

(BTW, I do not agree that Vorpal on 20 only is a "fix". I think it is a small mitigation, nothing more. The instant death, no save, little effective defense nature of Vorpal is still a problem.)

2) Assuming that Vorpal really wan't the primary reason for limiting crit ranges, there was still a less catastrophic way to reduce them. There is one feat, one weapon enhancement property, and 2 classes that grant improvements in a weapon's crit ranges that I am aware of. (There are probably more but 4 works for this argument.)

Ruling that only one increase applies effiectively destroys the utility of three out of four of these. That is pretty catastrophic. It would have been better to rule that you get only +1 from each additional increase in threat range rather than say only one total applies, because at least you get a small benefit from all of the abilities you have effectively paid for (muck like happens with multiple classes that give Divine Grace). Now however only one increase is ever useful and all others are utterly useless.

3) Since the problem seemed to center on the huge threat ranges that were possible with weapons like kukris and falchions, perhaps WoTC shouldn't immasculate the narrow-threat-range weapons too.

Even in 3.5 a falchion can still get a whopping threat range of 15-20 (3 in 10) x2 with even 1 expansion of its threat range (keen or improved critical). The poor battleaxe however is now forever stuck at 19-20 (1 in 10) x3. The 3x greater frequency of crit hits will significantly outweigh the slightly greater damage multiplier on average. The +1 threat increase solution allows the narrow-crit weapons to keep some parity while still limiting threat range increases overall.

Tzarevitch

 

[Spatula]

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

Uh, no they wouldn't. All the high-threat range weapons have a lower base damage and a x2 crit, in case you hadn't noticed. Crits with such weapons aren't all that deadly at the level they're possible.

Getting a crit on every hit with high-threat weapons is a trade-off - weapons with smaller threat ranges have better base damage, better crit multipliers, or both. Putting keen on a weapon is a magic 'plus' that could have been used for something else. A character that has put just about everything into getting crits is in real trouble when faced with foes that can't be crit'd. And 3E is all about trade-offs.

About the only reasonable justification that I can imagine for this change is that it will keep combat from being bogged down in confirm-crit rolls if there's a crit-master in the party.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Even in 3.5 a falchion can still get a whopping threat range of 15-20 (3 in 10) x2 with even 1 expansion of its threat range (keen or improved critical). The poor battleaxe however is now forever stuck at 19-20 (1 in 10) x3. The 3x greater frequency of crit hits will significantly outweigh the slightly greater damage multiplier on average. The +1 threat increase solution allows the narrow-crit weapons to keep some parity while still limiting threat range increases overall.

2d4 + (4d4 * .3) = 5 + (10 * .3) = 8 avg dmg
1d12 + (3d12 * .1) = 6.5 + (19.5 * .1) = 8.45 avg dmg

To me it doesn't seem quite as easy a dicision as you make it sound.

--Math Spikey

 

[SpikeyFreak]

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?

Huh?

If you have an attack bonus of +14, then you didn't need a 15 to hit AC 15.

--Editor Spikey