Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 1000186" data-attributes="member: 7211">Whew, here goes.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. 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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. 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.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.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'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.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.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.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.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.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</blockquote>

Verification