D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Threat ranges no longer stack!

[Pax]

First, there are a few things I don't think people are considering. IMC, I have a player who plays the standard "Fighter/Wpn Master" (18th lvl) for the crits. His weapon is a +1 Flaming, shocking burst holy Greatsword. When he is fully buffed (by the cleric and mage) he almost always crits. And players don't usually go into battle without being fully buffed. He has an average of +38 to hit and damage, and when he crits he does something like 10d6+56+3d10 damage. (That may not be precice, but it's within a few points... I'm at work.) During our last game, he did 110 points of damage to a CR 18 black dragon. Which has an average of 350 hps. He did that with A SINGLE HIT. If he'd had his haste activated, and made a full round attack, he would have had a fair chance to have killed it. By himself. That's screwed, and SHOULD be fixed.

Greatsword, Flaming and Shocking Burst, does not do 4d6. It does 2d6+1d6[fire]+1d6[shock]. On a critical hit -- multipleir increased through Weapon Master ability -- it does 6d6+1d6[fire]+1d6[shock]+3d10[shock]. That's a total of 8d6+3d10, not 10d6+3d10. And if he gets +38 damage, triple that is 114, not 56.

So, the numbers you've cited are waaaaaay off on being accurate enough to bring into play here.

As for CR18 ... that's pretty up there to begin with. However, there're plenty of creatures he could face, which woudl NOT be subject to critical hits. Throw him against a Lich (Cleric 14 base), with appropriate undead minions. Or a Vampire-and-flunkies. Or heck, both at once.

Or even better ... a normal fighter, wearing Full Plate +1 of Heavy Fortification. *poof* no more critical hits.

Lastly -- how is this character "always critting", if he's using a real die? Greatsword is 19-20/x2; with keen, impcrit, aND Weapon Master, that's 13-20/x2 (and occasionally, 13-20/x3); 40% of his swings should threat, hit or miss. 40% is less than 100%.

A mage casting a non-instant death spell (which probably won't exist anyway) can only hope to do around 144 points of damage in a round (say from a meteor swarm through a greater maximization rod). The fighter in my group (under haste, and fighting an evil creature that can be critted) can almost always get 3 crits a round, with a small chance for one, and a small chance to do regular damage. That's over 300 points of damage.

Twin Sonic-Substituted Firebrand, same metaRod. 30d6 is more than 24d6 (even if there ARE saves allowed).

Under 3.5 a mage cannot HOPE to do 300 HPs of damage in a single round. If you drop the fighter's threat range, then things get a bit better...

Yes, the mage can. It's called Disintigrate, and I've seen some ludicrously-high damage levels cited (somethign like 3d6/level). Maximise THAT sucker at 18th level, and we're talking something like 324hp of damage.

As an aside, I think it's a bit cheap to avoid using creatures that can be critted just to keep the fighter from killing it in the first round.

MOST of the creatures at the upper levels are crit-immune or crit-resistant; it's not a matter of searchign them out exclusively, it's a matter of, if 2/3 of the appropriate challenges available to a character of 15+ levels are immune to critical hits, then, said character should EXPECT criticals to not be possible at least ONE third of the time.

And finally, how can you question Andy on his design decisions? Isn't that THE FUNCTION of the designer - to decide what they like and write a game they think works and is fun?

No. The function of the lead designer for WOTC's R&D department is to discern what the majority of customers would like, and write THAT.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

Andy Collins isn't solely responsible for 3.5 revisions. But by the way some posters are acting, you wouldn't think that.

There was a redesign team, IIR. However Andy felt, it's a good bet that his opinions needed consensus from the other members of the team.

All the personal attacks are getting a little ridiculous. If you don't like the revisions, then use your own house rules. D&D isn't about statistics and mathematical calculations - it's supposed to be about fantasy and entertainment.

 

[rushlight]

"Greatsword, Flaming and Shocking Burst, does not do 4d6. It does 2d6+1d6[fire]+1d6[shock]. On a critical hit -- multipleir increased through Weapon Master ability -- it does 6d6+1d6[fire]+1d6[shock]+3d10[shock]. That's a total of 8d6+3d10, not 10d6+3d10."

I believe that the Holy aspect (which you didn't mention) also adds in 2d6. I don't have my books with me, but I think that's right.

"And if he gets +38 damage, triple that is 114, not 56."

If I recall correctly, his bonus to damage was around +18 or so, and he was also under the spell "Assassin's Senses" which I believe increases his crit multiplier. Anyway, as I said he was fully buffed, and I don't have his sheet here at work for to-the-exact-point reference. I'm within 5-10 points of damage in accuracy, and that's close enough.

"how is this character "always critting", if he's using a real die? Greatsword is 19-20/x2; with keen, impcrit, aND Weapon Master, that's 13-20/x2 (and occasionally, 13-20/x3); 40% of his swings should threat, hit or miss. 40% is less than 100%."

Also the "Assassin's Senses" reduces it another one, so it's closer to 50% of the time. Either way 50% is more than it should be.

"Yes, the mage can. It's called Disintigrate, and I've seen some ludicrously-high damage levels cited (somethign like 3d6/level). Maximise THAT sucker at 18th level, and we're talking something like 324hp of damage."

Isn't that capped to something like 150 points of damage in 3.5? I recall that there was some mention of that...

"No. The function of the lead designer for WOTC's R&D department is to discern what the majority of customers would like, and write THAT."

In a tangential way, perhaps. Their objective is to write a game that you will buy, therefore they will usually gear the game to the widest audience. Their game will still be written from their point of view, and with their notions of what is "right" and what is "wrong" for the game. They don't hold voting sessions and just accept whatever the outcome is. They do playtesting, and take that feedback and decide if it is relevant to make changes. If everyone sent them a petition to change 3.5 back to 2e they'd tell you to take a hike. The only method of voting here is with your wallet. Poor games (in which the designer's ideas don't mesh with the player's) die, and good games (which is vice versa) do well. There are people who like the poor games, and there are people who don't like the good games of course, but those are a minority. In short, they write what they like and hope you like it too. If you don't you can very quickly find that game in the bargin-bin...

And Zorlag said: "I suggest for such DM's to develop some backbone. If you can't deal with frustrated players at all, your games are going to get boring soon (probably no change of actually dying in the game or at least so that the game is stacked heavily towards PC's)."

Not all DMs are confrontational, nor should they be. While that style might work for you and your players, others might not find that a fun aspect for a game. Dif'rent Strokes people. But you can't argue with my central premise: People like to get bonuses, and don't like to lose things. Unless they are masochists. (And I have one of those in my game, so I understand...)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Err... has anyone proved that Andy Collins wrought this change all by himself yet?

Nope. That's why I asked people to prove it. R&D is still a big group.

 

[Storm Raven]

Nope. That's why I asked people to prove it. R&D is still a big group.

No one has proved that. But it is undisputed that the rationale given for the change is direct from Andy's mouth. If he had wanted, he could have argued any number of toehr reasons for the change. But he didn't. He chose the "crits aren't special under the old system" card, which is a silly basis to defend a change.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Should the great sword fighter have a threat range of 15-20 for this to be a equal footing comparision?

i.e. shouldn't they both have 2 doublings?

The greatsword guy has a +4 greatsword, the falchion guy has a +3 keen falchion. These are theoretically equivalent weapons (both have a +4 equivalent bonus), and I was trying to demonstrate the difference between a critical-hit-oriented character and a simple-damage oriented one.

Obviously, there's a good arguement that, by this level, both with have +5 weapons that are also keen (because of GMW, scabbards of keen edge, or both). I'm not going to do the full out math for that, but the basic effects will be:

When the greatsword is ahead, the falchion will be closer behind.

When the falchion is ahead, the greatsword will be closer behind.


I don't think that this strongly changes the tradeoff between falchion and greatsword -- both are viable options at high levels.

 

[Murrdox]

No one has proved that. But it is undisputed that the rationale given for the change is direct from Andy's mouth. If he had wanted, he could have argued any number of toehr reasons for the change. But he didn't. He chose the "crits aren't special under the old system" card, which is a silly basis to defend a change.

Geez, way to blame your problem with a rule on the guy who was just trying to give us a few little spoilers and such.

For crying out loud, it's not like all the rule changes weren't thought through, play tested, and agreed upon by a whole group of writers. And for all you know, Andy may have simply been offerring what HE thought was the best reason for the change. There may well have been others, but you don't KNOW do you?

All you folks flaming Andy need to cut it out. This isn't a flaming forum, its a rules forum. Discuss the rules, not how much you want to cut the messenger's head off. I don't care if he's the lead designer or not, he doesn't deserve flak from us just for hinting at some of the rules that some people might not like.

 

[hong]

Geez, way to blame your problem with a rule on the guy who was just trying to give us a few little spoilers and such.

For crying out loud, it's not like all the rule changes weren't thought through, play tested, and agreed upon by a whole group of writers. And for all you know, Andy may have simply been offerring what HE thought was the best reason for the change. There may well have been others, but you don't KNOW do you?

All you folks flaming Andy need to cut it out. This isn't a flaming forum, its a rules forum. Discuss the rules, not how much you want to cut the messenger's head off. I don't care if he's the lead designer or not, he doesn't deserve flak from us just for hinting at some of the rules that some people might not like.

Indeed, the presence of the Comic Book Store Guy is strong in this thread.

 

[dravot]

Indeed, the presence of the Comic Book Store Guy is strong in this thread.

Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you this will mean much less breeding, for me, much much more.

 

[Storm Raven]

Geez, way to blame your problem with a rule on the guy who was just trying to give us a few little spoilers and such.

He is the messenger. Furthermore, he has had a significant hand in the revisions, and still further, he gave us a lame justification for a major, and pretty pointless rule change that essentially invalidates a feat.

For crying out loud, it's not like all the rule changes weren't thought through, play tested, and agreed upon by a whole group of writers. And for all you know, Andy may have simply been offerring what HE thought was the best reason for the change. There may well have been others, but you don't KNOW do you?

I don't care about other justifications. Thus far, the only official jusitication we have been given is a dumb one. Thus far, the analysis shows that the rule that has been "fixed" wasn't a problem in any mechanical way. Perhaps you could suggest other possible rationales for the rule change? Thus far we have the possibilities of (a) it was abusive (which analysis has shown it was not) and (b) Andy's suggestion of "it makes crits non special" (and gosh, here I thought that 15th level characters were supposed to routinely be able to do extraordinary things).

It is one more silly, pointless, unneccessary change that appears to have been made just to make a change. Andy has come out and provided half-baked justifications for about all of them. Perhaps if he had given good justifications, he wouldn't be the subject of criticism.