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

[Pax]

So the people nay-saying this new rule in this thread represent the majority of ENworld, and therefore the majority of gamers as a whole?

Yes, I think that ENWorld is fairly representative of the D&D community as a whole; and since the majority of that representative group holds a negative opinion of this change (and others), I feelit is safe to say, the majority of gamers will not receive this change well.

A lot of people are upset because this change is going into effect not for some game balancing reason, but in an effort to make critical hits more cinematic.

That should be a decision made by DMs and their players at individual tables. Perhaps Andy and his buddies think critical hits should be rarer, but maybe I and my friends find them PLENTY rare enough!

They shout out that this is "wrong" and that anyone who'd make such changes was obviously dropped on their head when a child.

I, personally, shout no such thing. I instead shout "how dare you foist YOUR personal preferences off on US, without even asking us if we AGREE with you?"

Who are you to dictate that 3.0 or 3.5 is a game about crunching numbers.

I'm me. Who are you to dictate it is NOT? Besides, I've never said it's about crunching numbers.

The issue here is, Andy apparently personally dislikes broad threat ranges -- despite the fact thet 12-20 threat ranges have been in the game since initial playtest was complete. I have never, before now, heard anyone COMPLAIN about such broad threat ranges; the response has always been "yep, and a lot of stuff out thereis plain immune to crits".

A revision should fix PROBLEMS, not tweak the way a game plays to suit some aesthetic goal.

For me, this will make those critical hits fewer and far between, events making memorable moments in climactic battles. Fine, this isn't a change catering to those of you who want to see all the rows and columns line up. This is a change for me.

And you'd be perfectly welcome to choose not to get stacking-threat-improvement affects for yourself.

As of 3.5e, I will NOT be welcome, in a default-rules game, to choose any such thing.

So much for 3E being all about choices and "you can do anything", eh?

Originally written by spunky_mutters:
So I guess what I'm saying is that I can accept attacks on the explanations and reasons given by Andy and others at Wizards, but I think it's pretty weak to suggest something is a problem because he uses it in his home games.

It's not wether or not Andy uses it in his campaign that matters; it's the fact that, or so it seems, his use of it in his campaign is the ONLY real reason it's getting pushed into the core rules for 3.5; if Andy wants nonstacking threat improvements, and a watered-down-to-uselessness SF/GSF, and so on -- he's welcome to use them IN HIS OWN GAME.

But unless it's blatantly broken in the core rules, on it's own merit, it should never be "fixed".

Stacking threat-range improvements wasn't broken, taking only the core rules into account. And as has been said before, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The problem is, Andy didn't heed that advice, and he's now pushed HIS house rule into games I play in, but he doesn't play in.

I don't care WHAT his job title is, nothing makes that RIGHT.

 

[Grog]

The titan lost the ability to cast cleric spells, so he can no longer cast destruction and similar spells. Chain lightning can be defeated by a 3rd-level spell, which 21st-level characters tend to have a lot of.

And Destruction can be defeated by a 4th level spell, which 21st level characters also tend to have a lot of. And sure, a 21st level party can use Protection from Elements to absorb lightning damage, but the titan can throw its Chain Lightning as a free action, so it costs him nothing to use it. He can use Meteor Swarm if he gets bored with that. Also, the titan's attack bouns went up by 6 and his damage per hit went up by 8.

The titan received a significant increase in offensive power.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I did the math for those who want it. This is assuming a 20th level 3.5 Barbarian who when raging has 36 str and has weapon focus and improved crit in the weapon with all full attacks against an AC 41 opponent (hits on exactly 2 with his first attack).

Damage for 100 rounds of attacking:

Falchion +5, keen, speed: 13673.5
Falchion +5, flaming, speed: 13501.75
Greatsword +5, flaming, speed: 13407.75
Greatsword +5, keen, speed: 13196.25
Falchion +5, keen: 9678.75
Falchion +5, flaming: 9587.75
Greatsword +5, flaming: 9541.25
Greatsword +5, keen: 9367.75
Falchion +5: 8765.25
Greatsword +5: 8718.75

The following are stats for a rng 1/fighter 9/deepwood sniper 10 with weapon focus, point blank shot, weapon specialization, improved crit, using the deepwood sniper ability to make all the arrows keen and the crit multiplier of the bow x5. His Dex is 36, str 18. He is using a mighty composite longbox (+4) +5 and +5 arrows. I am giving him point blank bonuses. All of the numbers assume keen stacks with improved crit.

Damage for 100 rounds of attacking:

arrow stacking 11696
arrow stacking + Rapid Shot 13760
no arrow stacking 6567
no arrow stacking + Rapid Shot 8019

edit: included archer numbers

 

[Mike Sullivan]

A lot of people are upset because this change is going into effect not for some game balancing reason, but in an effort to make critical hits more cinematic. They shout out that this is "wrong" and that anyone who'd make such changes was obviously dropped on their head when a child.

Who knew? Apparently, I'm sitting at my computer, here, shouting. And making personal attacks against, er, someone.

Gosh. I guess my evil twin has been posting on my ID again.

Who are you to dictate that 3.0 or 3.5 is a game about crunching numbers.

I'm the guy who likes to see the game support, to the greatest extent it reasonable can, varied characters. I think that the two-handed weapon Martial list offers two optimized weapons in 3.5: the glaive and the greatsword. I think that someone who makes the, dare I say it, cinematic choice of wanting a greataxe or a falchion or a scythe, or whatever, is being penalized, for no good reason.

 

[Technik4]

think that someone who makes the, dare I say it, cinematic choice of wanting a greataxe or a falchion or a scythe, or whatever, is being penalized, for no good reason.

I always thought the difference in damages were very minor (to the decimal place for some).

As far as the actual point of the thread, Andy Collins has already stated that the Weapon Master's Improved Crit functions normally, this is because it requires many prc levels, so abuse is more limited.

As I said on the thread about this in the general forums, I think d&d would be better served if all threat modifier bonuses were quantified, just like they are for weapon bonuses.

So keen would be a keen bonus that would not stack with other keen bonuses like Keen Edge, Scabbard of Keen-ness, or a low level prc ability (I think the deepwood sniper has keen arrows at level 1, but don't quote me).

Then there would be a critical bonus that would not stack with other critical bonuses so Improved Critical, any effect that specifically mentions the threat range or has the word 'critical' in it would all be considered critical bonuses.

Special prcs that you want to stack with keen and critical bonuses like the Weapon Master would have an enhancement bonus to threat range. Enhancement bonuses would be very rare and generally very high level. Also because they are built into prcs, they are not an issue for people that don't want threat range abuse, simply ban or alter the offending prc.

Keen and critical would stack, multiple keen and multiple critical would not. I think the absolute lowest threat range for regular play (levels 1-20, not ultra high magic) should be 12-20. In certain campaigns, allowing it to go down to 9-20 hasn't broken anything in the past, and shouldn't in the future. Especially now that Vorpal only works on a 20 (wonder if it saw a decrease in price?).

Technik

 

[Lotus]

change it so Keen and Improved Critical, etc, only adds ONE to the threat range. Same benefit, wether you wield a falchion or a greatsword or a short spear or whatever.

Not even close to the same benefit, no matter how you slice it.

Take a spiked gauntlet, 1d4 20/x2 and add one to its threat range.

Now take a mercurial greatsword, 2d6 20/x4 and add one to its threat range.

Which one gets the bigger benefit?


Falchion, 2d4 18-20/x2, add one to its threat range: the chance to threaten a critical increases 33%.

Scythe, 2d4 20/x4, add one to its threat range: the chance to threaten a critical increases 100%.

Which one gets the bigger benefit?

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I always thought the difference in damages were very minor (to the decimal place for some).

The difference between a greataxe and greatsword is minimal. The difference between a falchion or scythe and greatsword is... not gigantic, but noticeable at low to mid levels. Where the breakpoint comes depends on the prevelence of high stats and magic weapons/buffing abilities in the game.

So, sure, you aren't going to ruin the playability of a character by using a greataxe. On the other hand, since there's literally NO advantage to it, however minimal, it just bugs me that there is that slight disadvantage. And because the medium and small-sized axes and swords have identical damage dice, it bothers me on an aesthetic level that the size large versions are different.

As far as the actual point of the thread, Andy Collins has already stated that the Weapon Master's Improved Crit functions normally, this is because it requires many prc levels, so abuse is more limited.

This totally baffles me. The Weapon Master's ability breaks the game's convention, benefits high crit multiplier weapons over high crit thresh weapons (note that for an axe or scythe wielder, the Weapon Master ability is twice as good as 3.0 keen or imp. crit), and is one of the only ways to actually come somewhat vaguely close to "abuse" with a critical-focused character. So it stays the same and then they nerf keen?

I mean, I really can't get my head around why they thought that that was the best way to go.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The issue here is, Andy apparently personally dislikes broad threat ranges -- despite the fact thet 12-20 threat ranges have been in the game since initial playtest was complete.

This is the same playtest that found Harm balanced. Try again.

 

[Pax]

This is the same playtest that found Harm balanced. Try again.

First off, I dont' see Harm as presented in the PHB (first printing) as being tHAT broken. A wee bit ahead of the 6th-level power curve yes, but not insanely, wrongly, game-destroyingly broken.

Second: it's not an issue of "Andy found a broken rule and fixed it", it's purely a matter of "Andy found a working rule that, nonetheless, offended his sense of aesthetics, and broke it -- for everyone!"

 

[Fedifensor]

Skimming through the thread, I didn't see the clairification Andy made in answer to my question on the WotC boards...so I'll go ahead and post it here.

Fedifensor:
"Regarding the changes to critical threat ranges (no stacking), what effect does this have on the Ki Critical ability of the Weapon Master (from Sword and Fist)? For reference, it says that if the character already has Improved Critical, add an additional +2 to the threat range.

Basically, do Prestige Classes in 3.5 have the ability to increase the threat range beyond its normal level? "

Andy:
"It seems like that'd be an exception to the rule. I'd let it work as written.

Though I'd endeavor to avoid creating a wide variety of classes that had such exceptions, it's OK to do so from time to time, particularly when it's a high-level ability of a class that's difficult to qualify for."