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

[Technik4]

Whew, here goes.

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?

My "complaint" is nothing of the sort. What I mean to say is that possessor's of 0 skill (BAB and combat feats) can still make critical hits. Ergo, it is difficult to believe that critical hits are entirely based on skill, since regardless of the user having it or not, the crits get made. Im not a math guy but Im pretty sure that someone sans keen, sans Imp. Critical will get about that same % of crits if they face monsters equal to their level. This, to me, suggests that a critical is a "lucky" blow, perhaps in a "critical" spot on the creature.

At lower levels a critical will nearly kill whoever is on the other end, regardless of crit range or modifier. At higher (15+) levels a crit will almost never outright kill anyone. This is part of the abstraction of the game we play.

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

But where does that +3 bonus come from? The sword, not you, not your skill, but a magical enhancement on a weapon you wield. An intelligent sword with the keen enhancement which granted Improved Critical as a bonus feat wielded by a commoner would inflict a lot of critical hits. None of them are based on skill.

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.

See above. And when you play a game with luck bonuses in the DMG it seems a little narrowminded to say improving a lucky event is impossible.

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.

Sorry, but thats just it. If wizards can make a balanced game within itself, if you only use core rules then it isn't a stretch to say that they can make a game balanced within itself and one that looks to the expansions that have already/will come. To do otherwise would be foolish.

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?

I didn't read your silly feat. But personally, since you aren't a member of Wizards of the Coast, and you apparantly arent a 3rd party designer, it hardly matters. My point is that wizards themselves followed up 3e with a supplement which improved critical ranges further. Other 3rd party publishers saw this and said "oh, good deal - we'll make a mechanic that does it too". Pretty soon its effortless to get a 12-20 crit range, and lower than that is possible if you want to play games.

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.

Sorry, I didn't spell out this arguement very well. Ok, its difficult to make a powerful lightly armored melee dex-based "fighter" in 3e. Dex-based implies higher dex than strength, which implies Weapon Finesse from the outset. The strongest weapon to weapon finesse is the rapier (unless youre going for 2wf, in which case its short sword, but this wont matter in a second). Since the weapon is about half as strong as the one a 2-hander is wielding, and perhaps only a couple points less than the sword and board there clearly needs to be something to compensate these characters in order for them to do enough damage to make an impact during an encounter. The answer was - critical hits. Rapiers have the highest starting crit range, and usually these characters would make a beeline for a keen rapier, followed up by acquiring Imp Critical asap.

Thus, the crit-stacking allowed a variant that may not have otherwise been as good, to be near-equal. Eliminating crit-stacking takes away from that variant, and I am saddened about it. However, 3e though it was extensively playtested, was not tested as rigorously at high levels than at lower ones. So the future of critstacking to what it is now was not forseen, and the "reversion" of crits not stacking (pre-3e there was no such mechanic, let alone allowing it to stack) allows for the original intent of a critical hit to be a more rare thing to shine through.

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.

But since both mechanics are linked, there is actually a bearing. Why should a dex-based "speed" fighter be forced into a style which is grossly ineffective against a myriad of foes? Because the rogue can't sneak attack them? I think thats silly. My dex-based fighter should be able to take on plants, undead, constructs, etc with the best 2-handers, sword and boarders, and 2wfighters.

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.

Youve got to be kidding. Check out how often some trivial event suckers a bunch of bad guys, or how often something irrelvant and stupid ends up distracting the bad guy and the good guy wins. BAB +8 does not necessarily mean grizzled vetran, it depends entirely on the campaign. For instance, in an epic campaign BAB +8 may indicate merely an average fighter, whereas a great one is BAB +18.

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?

They do. Of course they do. Everyone always makes adventures from scrap, thinks deeply about each element to be found within and has the time to fully stat every creature the PCs will encounter. Um, no. Most groups suffer from severe time limitations which make it difficult to play more than once in a while. All of those things happen, and I am aware of them, but can you honestly say that crits are as good for the bad guys as they are for the PCs? By definition a crit is something a PC will always see more of, precisely because a PC lives on longer than damn near any npc or monster they will encounter in a game.

Furthermore there are a lot more monsters attacking with slams, bites, and claws in the MM than level 1 drow warriors with rapiers (who of course need to be extrapolated and statted to be a threat to any party higher than 3rd level). The disparity implies that most of the time PCs will be dishing out more crits than the bad guys. And even when the rare time of fighting a dirty rogue or sneaky duelist (who have good crit ranges) comes, thsoe characters will be seen for what they are (after as little as 1 attack) and dealt with first.

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).

I already mentioned the handful with higher ranges. My point is do you really think there was no reason given behind the "standard" for natural weapons. Not many people can even make use of natural weapons, and while it would be more of an incentive to use them if a claw was equivelant to a dagger (1d4 19-20/x2) instead of something worse than a dagger, it would not lead to hordes of PCs and weapon-wielding monsters to throw down their weapons. I believe it was designed in that way so as to help PCs, to reduce the # of crits they would encounter. I don't have any evidence, except knowing how the DMG was written - with a firm outlook on what helps PCs and what hurts them.

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

Actually the game does match me, however it no longer matches you, which naturally distresses you. Lets try and remember - you are the one who doesn't like the new rule, not me.

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.

Thanks for the update. My intention of course was that it seems like the only buggers actually "using" these enhanced precision techniques are ones that use weapons.

What about a fierce monster like a tiger. A tiger has sharp claws, so sharp they are keen-like? No. So sharp that they crit as often as say...bladed gauntlets or punching daggers? No. Of course, thankfully I can always give them Improved Critical, which is about as useful as a PC taking Imp Crit for a club.

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.

I'd respect you more if you didn't lower yourself to insulting my players. Show me a game where the DM never flubs and I will show you a game where players die often and don't feel as connected to their characters as others. Which is not to say that I flub very often, or that the preceding is true of all games. Even though I know you really wanted to quote me saying that and imply it.

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

For some reason I'm picturing piles and piles of cow manure. Even if we limit ourselves to looking through 3e modules I think you will find my claim true. The fact is that feat and that enhancement are total no-brainers if you are wielding a rapier. I mean, lets say you are high enough that you qualify for Imp Crit. What reason do you have to not pick it up? Its totally awesome for you, its a substantial power-up and nothing short of an in-character disdain (or extreme affetion) for something affecting the decision (another feat) could make someone NOT take Imp Crit.

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.

Really? Like a disarm base fighter? Would that be a good way to go with a rapier? I'm wondering simply because I can't seem to find a single reason why it would be. What about a trip-based character? First pick - rapier....um no. In fact all its good for is precision hit specialists because if you aren't worried about the crit range you already picked a different weapon.

And gods man, if it isn't "the best" than can you tell me what is? Because I sure would like to know how some of the powergamers I've seen overlooked it.

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

Yes. Im glad you saw the flaw in my reasoning. Clearly spells will begin having fewer dice to roll 1 time (at the cost of losing a spell slot or a spell/day) because that dice rolling is excessive. As is rolling a critical threat and a confirm roll for each weapon for each attack, every round in addition to damage dice, and color coding them so certain attacks go with certain damages (in case a crit does occur). I'm very glad you saw through me.

And thus, make many weapons far less attractive?

In what way? After all, youve already said the rapier is good for many other things. Many people can attest that the weapons are all balanced with respect to each other, only at high crit ranges do falchions prove to be more powerful than other weapons. Without critstacking, all weapons are created a little more equal.

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. [/B]

While the original rule was (as you love pointing out) that they stack, the rule has been revised to say they don't. My reasoning behind this change (change as in it has happened, now you have to do deal with it) was because something had gone wrong or because the revision is beneficial. That something was the exploitation of crit ranges (by high level characters, their own supplements, and 3rd party supplements), beyong what was originally conceived (and therefore intended). Does this make anyone wrong for using this in 3e? No. It was fun, it made sense, I liked it. I'm still going to change, because I have a feeling I can like that too.

Technik

 

[Anubis]

To the argument comparing not stacking Improved Critical with Keen being like not stacking Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with Enhancement Bonuses, I have got to say that such a comparison is ridiculous.

Improved Critical is the skill to make more critical hits, but the Keen ability overrides it due to the fact that it does it its own way, meaning the skill logically will not have MORE effect that way.

Enhancement Bonuses, however, would not logically override Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization becasue the ENHANCEMENT (key word there) is direct magical energy and not a magical "effect" per se. If Keen were magical energy, then a Keen +1 weapon would hurt a creature with +2 DR. It doesn't, though. THAT is the difference. Energy and skill can combine, while a magical "effect" and skill would not necessarily. (There are of course exceptions to every rule.)

Last but certainly not least, the most important logic of all behind the threat range increases not stacking is simply one of PURE AND SIMPLE BALANCE. +1 or +2 to hit and damage stacking with other stuff does not unbalance things. Stacking things (a feat and a +1 ability) that can eventually result in HUNDREDS of points of added damage, THAT is just plain abusive balance-wise.

 

[Camarath]

Why not just change the Keen ability to allow the wielder to use the weapon as if he had the Improved Critical Feat? That would seem to me to be the a simpler and more elegant solution than changing the critical threat range stacking rule. They would not stack if they were (basicly) the same thing. The result would be the same with out changing the rules. Then it would be easier to customize your game. If you wanted stacking you could use the 3.0 Keen, if you didn't you could use the 3.5, and if you wanted some fun you could use both. It seems very heavy handed to me to change the stated rules when you could just change the property that made the rules necessary. Now we have characters which can look exactly the same on paper but function vastly different depending on which 3rd edition rule set you use. IMO if you changed the function of Keen the difference would be easier to remember and explain.

 

[Halivar]

HUNDREDS of points?

Dang, my level 17 warrior only deals out 4d6+36 damage on a crit (range 15-20). What kind of goodies are you handing out to your characters? Can I play, too?

Wait a sec, forgot +7 power attack... 4d6+50.

Wait a sec, forgot to double the PA bonus for 3.5... 4d6+64.

Now, since I just took 7 off my attack, I'll hit, at most probably, with two of my attacks. Both will not crit. Considering the amount of HP's things at CR 17 have, I do not consider this damage to be out of whack.

 

[residieu]

I think I see where the designers were coming from. Crits are just too GOOD. With core rules it might not be so bad, but once you start adding in splatbook material and PrCs it gets really ugly, because many of these abilities synergize too well.

So if the problem is with the splatbook material, and not critical stacking in the core rules, why don't you throw out the problematic splatbook material instead?

I think I'll publish a book with rules that unbalance
the dagger so that in 3.8 they ban the dagger.

 

[Technik4]

why don't you throw out the problematic splatbook material instead?

You can't throw out material you don't own. 3rd party supplements have also released materials which have upped the crit ante. Its all well and good to say "ignore that, its not core" but that isnt really what d&d 3e and d20 were meant to be. The core rules should be balanced within themselves and be balanced with the addition of WotC supplements as well as balanced 3rd party supplements.

This means that if wizards made a book with a bad-ass unbalanced dagger, and you as a 3rd party publisher designed a feat for use with that dagger (assuming it was OGL) the core rules still wouldnt be changed.

However if something inherent in the core rules (like allowing multiple crit modifying bonuses to stack) becomes broken, by changing the core rules to no longer allow it, you also curb your own previous products, as well as future balanced 3rd party products.

Technik

 

[Anubis]

I DID suggest having Keen simply give the wielder Improved Critical with that weapon. Sounds like the most feasible idea to me.

As for hundreds of damage, I meant exactly what I said. This problem shows up at the early epic levels primarily, although it starts creeping in around Level 15. Imagine this:

Level 25: Ranger 5/Weapon Master 10/Tempest 10
Weapons: 2 Keen Shocking Burst Bladed Gauntlets +5

Now assuming the character in question has, say, a modified Strength of 30 (which is not at all out of the realm of possibility given a +5 inherent bonus and +6 enhancement bonus) along with Weapon Focus, Power Attack and all class abilities of course, the attacks and damage would look something like so (IF you use the totally nerfed errata version of the bladed gauntlet which does not even equal a martial weapon and not the more accurate 18-20 threat range that is due to it as an exotic weapon):

Atk +40/+40/+35/+35/+30/+30/+25/+25 melee (1d6+15/+10/13-20/x2 crit, bladed gauntlet)

Now take into account that this guy can probably hit with all eight attacks against anything he's supposed to go against since his worst attack is +25. His chances of getting crits are 61.75% per hit. At eight hits this means 494% chance of critical hits! Rounding up, this means five of the eight are LIKELY to be critical hits. Without any, he'll dish out 128 damage easy. WITH critical hits, however, that damage jumps up to 210 at least! Add in his weapon master abilities and/or Power Attack against a creature with a lesser AC, and this damage goes up even further. THIS is JUST at Level 25. Add ten more levels and this guy will on average do eight times as much damage as the average fighter of the SAME LEVEL, and with Overwhelming Critical and Devastating Critical, will be instant-killing damn near everything thanks to the enhanced threat range. Go with the more proper exotic weapon threat range of 18-20 from the start and it's even worse (seeing as this guy could do this with worse weapons than the bladed gauntlet otherwise, such as longsword/short sword, longsword/rapier, or bastard sword/rapier).

THAT is why the stacking threat ranges to be be cut out completely.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Anubis, that's a 35% chance of a threat per hit. (7 numbers out of 20 give a threat). That's a THREAT, not a confirmed crit.

And that char has devoted a LOT of time, feats and energy to just get that 35%. Run the numbers yourself with Spikey's excellent combat calculator vs a range of AC's, there was nothing wrong balance wise with imp crit and keen.

As for all the concerns about splat books, that's tripe. There are very very few methods of enhancing threat ranges past imp crit and keen in the WotC material. There's...Weapon Master, a PrC that's a pain to qualify for, Spikes, a spell that really needs to be nerfed, and what, some Assassin spell in Song and Silence? Wow, threat range stacking is out of control.

And as for the person who claims that WotC has to idiot proof their rules to preemptively balance every potential idea some company out there has for a kewl powerup, that is patently ridiculous. They need to concern themselves with thier OWN rules, no one elses.

*edit* Oh, and Anubis...claiming that at 25th level a fighter will be facing AC's in the 30's range...well, I can only say that you must not have looked too closely at the monsters at those CR ranges...and at 25th level, I would HOPE that a fighter could deal around 150 damage a round against pathetic AC's. Try comparing this "monster" of yours to 25th lvl casters with epic spells.

 

[Eye Tyrant]

A player in my group (Ftr/Wpn Mstr) has the Imp. Crit. feat, a Keen blade and a wizard that likes to cast the Keen Edge spell (or whatever it's called)... Now I can see that the spell and the blade itself will not inherently stack, but I can't buy that the feat taken by my player is simply the only thing to improve the threat range. It goes into the whole enhancement bonus thing... "Is it a luck bonus, circumstance bonus, insight bonus or what? This stacks with that, but not this... etc" I just see a my players not wasting the feat when they can get the same effect from a spell or item...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Another possible easy solution to provide a sense of balance to the situation:

Rule that Improved Critical applies to *all* weapons that the fighter uses. he's just good at getting criticals with everything. Now it doesn't matter that it doesn't stack with keen, because it is still a benefit with everything else that he might choose to fight with.

I'll probably house-rule it to allow the two to continue to stack in my current campaign, but in the future I might go with this approach (after all, you don't need weapon focus with the weapon to get improved crit, just proficiency).

I think this would probably be the most elegant solution to the issue which still prevented stacking of crit multipliers.

Cheers