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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 998278" data-attributes="member: 307">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?It makes you more skilled in the same way that a +3 longsword makes you better able to hit and do damage.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.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: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?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.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.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?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.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.Because the monsters that use those types of natural attacks are generally balanced to face PCs of their CR without those bonuses.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.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.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've seen some. Most of them, in point of fact, didn't have either attributes.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.So, high level spells using multiple dice to resolve damage and iterative attacks should be done wway with too?And thus, make many weapons far less attractive?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.</blockquote>

Verification