Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 997708" data-attributes="member: 7211">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.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.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.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 levels2) Nerf the uber-high threat ranges some characters were achieving3) Restore the original intent of the critical hitI 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</blockquote>

Verification