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

[SpikeyFreak]

(Probably a great many people, actually. But it's not worth it. )

Use the excel spreadsheet in my sig and you will see this it is quite worth it.

--Serious Spikey

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Use the excel spreadsheet in my sig and you will see this it is quite worth it.

I've done the math m'self. It's not worth it.

(Yes, yes, it's <i>actually</i> worth it in some cases and not in others. My judgement is that the cases where it's not worth it out-shine the cases where it is worth it.)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If the problem was truly one of stacking of the feat and keen, perhaps the best solution would be to have increased the price of keen? At the moment it is a +1 enchantment and that is relatively cheap and easy to add. If it was rated at a +2 or +3 enchantment it would be much less likely to be chosen.

I like this idea! Should I write it on my 5 or 6 line 3.5 house rule document?

 

[Grog]

How about:

Crit on natural 20
Confirm on threat range ie. roll d20 and if unmodified roll is within range crit stands (no BAB or anything).
Damage modifier stays the same.

Then you can play with the threat range as much as you want, and all weapons will stay balanced relatively.

That actually sounds like a pretty good house rule for the "crits should be rare" crowd.

 

[Grog]

I see no problem with the new rules. In fact, these are an improvement. It makes perfect sense that a fighter's training is overshadowed by magic. Magic is powerful.

So, I take it you also believe that fighters should lose the bonuses from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization whenever they're using a magic weapon?

What this allows is two paths to better crits, either through magic or through training, but NOT both. No more human cuisinart ranger/tempest/weapon masters with bladed gauntlets to hit for thousands of damage per turn upon critting eight straight times.

Yeah, because, as we all know, that happened all the time under the 3.0 rules...

 

[Halivar]

As a player of a fighter class (which is balanced just fine in 3.0, IMO, if not underpowered next to wizards and clerics who routinely clean my clock), I am somewhat miffed that the same board that was up in arms over a Power Attack buff is open-armed over a cirt-range nerf.

I got no problem with playing 3.5, as long as we're playing all of it. Don't tell me it's ok to let a significant power curtailing through the sluice-gates while screening out a counter-balancing class improvement.

The answer to making mages more powerful is to make them just that; more powerful. Not weakening fighters.

 

[Technik4]

Your analogy isn't even in the same area code as the actual situation you are trying to analogize.

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.

Well thanks. Honestly, I thought I said it wasn't a very good analogy, but anyway if all a critical hit represents is skill (as opposed to luck) then riddle me this:

A level 1 commoner with BAB +0 will get a critical hit against another commoner about 5% of the time. Talk about skill!

What exactly about "Keen" suggests skill? Is it...the sharpness? No, that isn't skill, but it may make you more "lucky" or "up your odds" of slicing someone up really good. Its magic, it makes you better, it does not make you more skilled.

What about Improved Critical? This is your entire basis for Critical hits relying on "skill":

"...,you know how to hit where it hurts."

That little bit of flavor is the foundation of the argument that "critical hits are based on skill". Sorry, I'll keep my interpretation, that a critical hit represents a "lucky" blow which can be described a myriad of ways to a player.

As I said, I (personally) believe that the end result of crit-tastic characters was not forseen nor intended by the designers of 3e. Am I speaking of only Keen and Improved Critical? No. There have been supplements printed both by wizards and by 3rd party which have added to those base modifiers of critical hits.

As I said, this allowed a variant which should be viable in the game to be viable, although I believe for the wrong reasons. A lightly armored character should not have to depend on critical hits to be a worthy member of a party, they should be viable in all situations - it is the rogue who is dependant on both sneak attack and therefore a creature's vulnerability to critical hits.

Luck plays a large role in most of the most famous stories this game is based off of. Think of any good adventure tale and there will be some luck involved. Granted, skill also usually plays a large role, but the division between skill and luck is easy to muddle. One person's luck may be the misapplication of someone else's skill.

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

The fallacy is that only the "good guys" have access to this special "skill" that allows them to slice and dice the opposition. Sure, there have been a few attempts at making monsters with good crit ranges, but it has been half-hearted at best. Why don't different natural attacks have varying crit changes, why is it always 20/x2 (the weakest)?

Becuase, imo, critical hits are supposed to be a fairly rare thing for both sides. Yes, 3e was written with keen and imp. critical stacking, because allowing the good guys small advantages is fun and heroic (and it works for evil NPCs with class levels!). Why aren't claws 19-20/x2 and bites 20/x3? Why isnt "Keen Fang" a druid spell? I mean, logically, if these things had occurred to average humans, wouldnt a dragon (of massive intellect) have thought of it?

Well because honestly crits for the bad guys sucks for the good guys. There are already many many ways for 1 bad roll to sink a PC, and crits are already one of those bad rolls. If monsters had equivelant threat ranges or "skill" then they should be rending PCs even more, which isn't much fun on either side of the screen. DMs feel like they have to flub more rolls, PCs die more often. Its better for the game, and all involved if crits are a rarer thing, generally speaking.

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.

Ahem. We all know d&d combat is an abstraction right? I mean, a fighter probably swings his sword more than 1-4 times in 6 seconds regardless if he is 1st or 20th level. Allowing for higher level fighters to do more damage is a direct relationship between his "skill". The fact that the mechanical method for determining how much is an iterative attack is meaningless, it boils down to more damage for the fighter, thus showing he can kill things faster, thus showing he is more skilled than someone without this iterative attack (skill).

How many rapier users didn't have both keen and improved critical? Hmm? Any of them? Doubtful, very doubtful if they were high enough level. Now, we ask ourselves is that because they all happened to be playing "precise hit specialists"? Or, is it because if you have one it is pretty silly not to have the other. So silly that its not really a choice. There are things like this that are intended - Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec for fighters, but that applies nicely to any weapon. For a rapier user there really is only one way to go, and it appears that way was questioned.

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.

I had noticed, thanks. Allow me to ask if youve noticed what the crit range is for a claw, bite, slam, tail slap, rend, etc - basically any non-weapon attack is. For the record, I'm actually sure you had noticed.

To wrap up. I believe the rules have been altered to do a couple things:

1) Reduce the amount of dice rolls at high levels
2) Nerf the uber-high threat ranges some characters were achieving
3) Restore the original intent of the critical hit

I don't like that it unfairly nerfs dex-based fighters. I don't like that this time they didn't allow for supplements to build on the core rules better. I do, overall, like the new rules better.

Technik

 

[Sejs]

What exactly about "Keen" suggests skill? Is it...the sharpness? No, that isn't skill, but it may make you more "lucky" or "up your odds" of slicing someone up really good. Its magic, it makes you better, it does not make you more skilled.

Yeah, Keen adds more penetration (or oomph in the case of blunt weapons) to where some of those 'would have been more deadly had I cut a bit deeper' hits do indeed cut a bit deeper. It's magic, it makes you better by giving a little boost to your skill. Like using masterwork tools.

What about Improved Critical? This is your entire basis for Critical hits relying on "skill":

"...,you know how to hit where it hurts."

That little bit of flavor is the foundation of the argument that "critical hits are based on skill". Sorry, I'll keep my interpretation, that a critical hit represents a "lucky" blow which can be described a myriad of ways to a player

By all means, you're free to interpret however you want to. But he does have a more solid argument, because he can point to a place in the rules and say it says skill, right here. Conversely, you can't point to where it says 'lucky blow'

A lightly armored character should not have to depend on critical hits to be a worthy member of a party

You lost me - how does the armor a person wears factor in?

Why don't different natural attacks have varying crit changes, why is it always 20/x2 (the weakest)?

Critters that have the Augmented Criticals quality, which are admittadly rare - natural attacks have crappy criticals because they don't require any training, class levels, or feats to use. If a human lashes out with their 1d3 subdual punch, it's 20/x2. If a griffon bites you with it's 2d6 bite, it's 20/x2. If a 20th level monk kung-fus you up and down the block with his blinding flurry of 1d20 fists of vengeance, they're 20/x2. They have crappy critical numbers because anyone can use them without special training. If there was a small size simple weapon that was considdered to do piercing, slashing and crushing damage and did 2d6 damage, but suffered by having -just- a 20/x2 crit, you count just how many characters would line up to use those. I can tell you right now, not a single adventurer would be caught without one, ever. That weapon is just a griffon's bite attack's stats. Natural weapon have crappy crits because of the zero investment required to use them.

Why aren't claws 19-20/x2 and bites 20/x3?

See above.

Why isnt "Keen Fang" a druid spell? I mean, logically, if these things had occurred to average humans, wouldnt a dragon (of massive intellect) have thought of it?

Re: Druids - because druids don't have keen edge. Neither do clerics. Re: Dragons - there's alot of spells that dragons would develop to play off their natural advantages, none of which are core. Very few of which are even published anywhere. As for Keen Fang - who says it doesn't work on natural weapons? The spell target says 'weapon touched' doesn't it? A natural weapon is still a weapon.

Well because honestly crits for the bad guys sucks for the good guys. There are already many many ways for 1 bad roll to sink a PC, and crits are already one of those bad rolls. If monsters had equivelant threat ranges or "skill" then they should be rending PCs even more, which isn't much fun on either side of the screen. DMs feel like they have to flub more rolls, PCs die more often. Its better for the game, and all involved if crits are a rarer thing, generally speaking.

If you choose to ignore parts of the system to enhance the game for you players, that's just dandy. But it's not a failing of the system that's at fault. Systematically a monster attacking with natural weapons crits just as often, and as hard as a monk. A bad guy fencer with imp crit and a keen rapier crits exactly as often as a PC fencer with the same mods.

Ahem. We all know d&d combat is an abstraction right? I mean, a fighter probably swings his sword more than 1-4 times in 6 seconds regardless if he is 1st or 20th level. Allowing for higher level fighters to do more damage is a direct relationship between his "skill". The fact that the mechanical method for determining how much is an iterative attack is meaningless, it boils down to more damage for the fighter, thus showing he can kill things faster, thus showing he is more skilled than someone without this iterative attack (skill).

And for situation where iterative attacks don't come into play? Two level 10 fighters with identical stats (10s across the board) take a 30' move toward, and then make a single attack against an unarmored man (Ac 10). Neither charges or takes any special actions; just one move action, and a single attack at highest ba. Both have invested all their feats into things that have no effect on this combat, EXCEPT one has Improved Critical with Longsword, where the other does not. Both are wielding mundane longswords. The imp crit fighter is more 'skilled' with the longsword, than the other guy. The imp crit fighter should be able to do more damage, because of his skill even though both men are the same level.

How many rapier users didn't have both keen and improved critical? Hmm? Any of them? Doubtful, very doubtful if they were high enough level. Now, we ask ourselves is that because they all happened to be playing "precise hit specialists"?

Yes. That's precicely why a rapier is a 1d6 -medium- weapon with a -high crit range- yet a low crit multiplier, and why it can be -finessed- even though it would otherwise be too large. It is a "precice hit weapon"; to become better with it, such that you dedicate feats to it's improvement, you become a "precice hit specialist". A rapier cannot deal giant gaping gash-wounds like an axe because it's a glorified needle. But it sure it easy to get into vital organs because it's so easy to move around.

I don't like that it unfairly nerfs dex-based fighters.

This change alone? No. This combined with power attack; no PA w/ light weapons, period - does nerf the dex-based fighter unfairly. It was possible to make a decent short sword fighter character, before. Now, without any pa, or crit stacking..nope. Get a bigger weapon, they're the wave of the future.

 

[Storm Raven]

I see no problem with the new rules. In fact, these are an improvement. It makes perfect sense that a fighter's training is overshadowed by magic. Magic is powerful.

Okay.

Let's also make a rule that Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization don't stack with the bonuses to attack rolls and damage provided by magic weapons. How does that sound?

 

[Storm Raven]

A level 1 commoner with BAB +0 will get a critical hit against another commoner about 5% of the time. Talk about skill!

Yeah? So? A 1st level commoner by definition is not very skilled. Why exactly are you complaining that his skill doesn't show up in the form of a critical hit very often?

What exactly about "Keen" suggests skill? Is it...the sharpness? No, that isn't skill, but it may make you more "lucky" or "up your odds" of slicing someone up really good. Its magic, it makes you better, it does not make you more skilled.

It makes you more skilled in the same way that a +3 longsword makes you better able to hit and do damage.

What about Improved Critical? This is your entire basis for Critical hits relying on "skill":

"...,you know how to hit where it hurts."

That little bit of flavor is the foundation of the argument that "critical hits are based on skill". Sorry, I'll keep my interpretation, that a critical hit represents a "lucky" blow which can be described a myriad of ways to a player.

How you want to describe critical hits is irrelevant. The key factor is that critical hits are driven by the skill of the combatant. If they were not, then the Improved Critical feat would not exist: improving a "lucky" event is pretty much impossible.

As I said, I (personally) believe that the end result of crit-tastic characters was not forseen nor intended by the designers of 3e. Am I speaking of only Keen and Improved Critical? No. There have been supplements printed both by wizards and by 3rd party which have added to those base modifiers of critical hits.

And what may have appeared in supplements is entirely irrelevant when considering the make up of the core rules. Those supplements are optional. Especially in the case of third party supplements. Suppose I put togather a supplement that gave this feat:

Rapier Mastery [General]
Prerequisties: None
Benefits: Any character taking this feat gains the benefits of the Martial Weapon Proficiency: Rapier, Weapon Finesse: Rapier, Weapon Focus: Rapier, and Weapon Specialization: Rapier feats. In addition, The character gains a +20 unnamed bonus to all attack rolls made with the rapier, and deals 12d6 base damage with each successful hit with a rapier.

Now, does WotC need to revise the core rules concerning the rapier because I made a silly feat? If not, why do they need to revise critical threats because some third party publisher might have made a silly feat?

As I said, this allowed a variant which should be viable in the game to be viable, although I believe for the wrong reasons. A lightly armored character should not have to depend on critical hits to be a worthy member of a party, they should be viable in all situations - it is the rogue who is dependant on both sneak attack and therefore a creature's vulnerability to critical hits.

Why is it that the armor of a character makes a difference with repsect to his critical hits? I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Besides, the fact that a rogue benfits from being able to score sneak attacks against creatures that are vulnerable to critical hits in no way has a bearing on whether other types of characters who focus on scoring critical hits (like fighters, rangers, paladins and so on) should be viable.

Luck plays a large role in most of the most famous stories this game is based off of. Think of any good adventure tale and there will be some luck involved. Granted, skill also usually plays a large role, but the division between skill and luck is easy to muddle. One person's luck may be the misapplication of someone else's skill.

I have yet to see a story in which the primary attribute of a veteran, skilled warrior in combat was his "luck". Sure, many stories discuss the novice in battle benefiting from unlikely amounts of luck, but the grizzled veteran almost always has skill as his predominant characteristic in combat. And since the Improved Critical feat has a prerequirsite of BAB +8 or higher, we are talking about veteran combatants when we talk about guys with the feat.

The fallacy is that only the "good guys" have access to this special "skill" that allows them to slice and dice the opposition.

Then the DM is a moron who should be roundly laughed at by his players. Are there no humanoid enemies with class elevels around to have feats? Does the DM not notice that he can swap out Monster Manual feats as he finds appropriate (a practice endorsed by, for example, Monte Cook). Why is it that one or more of the 10th level fighter opponents of the PCs does not have Improved Critical? Why is it that PCs don't regularly fight some of the very common foes who are not subject to critical hits?

Sure, there have been a few attempts at making monsters with good crit ranges, but it has been half-hearted at best. Why don't different natural attacks have varying crit changes, why is it always 20/x2 (the weakest)?

Because that is the standard critical range for natural weapons (and it isn't always, there are a handful of monsters with higher threat ranges). Besides, many monsters use weapons. Orcs, ogres, giants, goblins, skeletons, vampires, drow, and so on ad nauseum are all frequent users of weapons. Try an ogre with a huge greataxe if you want an opponent with big criticals. Throw a couple drow with rapiers at the PCs.

Becuase, imo, critical hits are supposed to be a fairly rare thing for both sides.

Your opinion is beside the point. The point is that the game doesn't match your opinion on a wide array of matters relating to critical hits.

Yes, 3e was written with keen and imp. critical stacking, because allowing the good guys small advantages is fun and heroic (and it works for evil NPCs with class levels!). Why aren't claws 19-20/x2 and bites 20/x3?

Because the monsters that use those types of natural attacks are generally balanced to face PCs of their CR without those bonuses.

Why isnt "Keen Fang" a druid spell? I mean, logically, if these things had occurred to average humans, wouldnt a dragon (of massive intellect) have thought of it?

Dragons don't normally get druid spells. They get sorcerer spells. And Keen Edge is already on the sorcerer spell list, and can (and in many cases should) quite easily be used on bite attacks.

Well because honestly crits for the bad guys sucks for the good guys.

Actually, honestly, the real reason is that those opponents are balanced to face PCs with a powerful array of feats and magic items without those additional benefits.

There are already many many ways for 1 bad roll to sink a PC, and crits are already one of those bad rolls. If monsters had equivelant threat ranges or "skill" then they should be rending PCs even more, which isn't much fun on either side of the screen. DMs feel like they have to flub more rolls, PCs die more often. Its better for the game, and all involved if crits are a rarer thing, generally speaking.

I don't know what kind of pantywaist players you deal with, but I have always found that combat is much more exciting when there is an element of danger.

How many rapier users didn't have both keen and improved critical? Hmm? Any of them? Doubtful, very doubtful if they were high enough level.

I've seen some. Most of them, in point of fact, didn't have either attributes.

Now, we ask ourselves is that because they all happened to be playing "precise hit specialists"? Or, is it because if you have one it is pretty silly not to have the other. So silly that its not really a choice. There are things like this that are intended - Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec for fighters, but that applies nicely to any weapon. For a rapier user there really is only one way to go, and it appears that way was questioned.

Actually, no, there are many ways to go with a rapier. It is just that the Improved Critical and keen combination is a good one (although not necessarily the best). It also dovetails nicely with the fact that rapiers are precision weapons, used by precision hit specialists.

1) Reduce the amount of dice rolls at high levels

So, high level spells using multiple dice to resolve damage and iterative attacks should be done wway with too?

2) Nerf the uber-high threat ranges some characters were achieving

And thus, make many weapons far less attractive?

3) Restore the original intent of the critical hit

In that case, you better go back and restore the stacking effects, since the original intent was to allow for it. Given that the rules expressly provided for it. Soemthing you consistently ignore in your rush to say the original intent was what you think it was, as opposed to what the books said it was.