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

[Murrdox]

That would mean that axes and picks would get a lot more out of Improved Crit than swords would. Doing the math for a moment:

Unmodified longsword: +100% damage (x2) on 10% of hits (19-20) = +10% damage for crits.
Unmodified battleaxe: +200% (x3) damage on 5% of hits (20) = +10% damage from crits.
Longsword with one crit booster, old style: +100% damage on 20% of hits = +20%.
Battleaxe with one crit booster, old style: +200% damage on 10% of hits = +20%.
Longsword with one crit booster, your way: +100% damage on 15% of hits = +15%.
Battleaxe with one crit booster, your way: +200% damage on 10% of hits = +20%.

As you can see, with your way of doing things battleaxes and the like stand to gain a lot more from boosting threat range.

Yes? And?

Since when do ALL weapons need to benefit equally from Improved Critical?

When choosing your weapon, you have a choice. You can either take a 20/X4 weapon such as a scythe, and have a low potential to threaten a critical, or you can take a 19-20/X2 weapon like a longsword, which doesn't do as much damage when it criticals, but it will critical more often.

I'm not NERFING swords. I'm nerfing the ability. Why should Improved Critical improve your critical chance by 5% or 10% or 15% depending on which weapon you wield? It's the same ability, but it's more or less powerful depending on what weapon you apply it to.

Improved Critical/Keen, IMHO should simply be a flat 5% increase in the frequency of your critical hits.

I don't care if after all the averages and statistics are done, you'll end up doing more damage with a Keen Battleaxe than a Keen Longsword. The POINT is that you'll be getting more critical hits with the longsword than the Battleaxe, and that's the whole point of the feat/enchantment. Why should Improved Critical improve my chances of getting a critical hit by only 5% if I apply it to an axe, but it improves it 10% if I apply it to a longsword?

 

[Numion]

Can't say I'm too happy with this one. Things were typically fine unless you started throwing in PrCs. If anything I could understand reducing keen to a flat 1 to your threat range.

Well, I really didn't have trouble with this, except that everyone and their granddaddy used scimitars or falchions, just for the threat range. (Not all, but non-cleric meleers anyway. Clerics used deitys weapon and archers used, well, bows )

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Well, I really didn't have trouble with this, except that everyone and their granddaddy used scimitars or falchions, just for the threat range. (Not all, but non-cleric meleers anyway. Clerics used deitys weapon and archers used, well, bows )

You know, I have run one (soon to be 2) 3.0 campaigns, and I'm currently playing in 1 - in that time I have seen a grand total of *1* rapier, and zero falchions. Said rapier was in the hands of a swashbuckler bard (who is not putting keen/improved crit/etc on it - it's just his primary melee weapon).

Where are these exotic and mysterious games where everyone is using falchions and rapiers, using Finesse and high Dex and doing more damage then the STR 18+ fighter with the greatsword/PA/W.Spec?

- Ma'at

 

[Dimwhit]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Numion
Well, I really didn't have trouble with this, except that everyone and their granddaddy used scimitars or falchions, just for the threat range. (Not all, but non-cleric meleers anyway. Clerics used deitys weapon and archers used, well, bows )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You know, I have run one (soon to be 2) 3.0 campaigns, and I'm currently playing in 1 - in that time I have seen a grand total of *1* rapier, and zero falchions. Said rapier was in the hands of a swashbuckler bard (who is not putting keen/improved crit/etc on it - it's just his primary melee weapon).

Where are these exotic and mysterious games where everyone is using falchions and rapiers, using Finesse and high Dex and doing more damage then the STR 18+ fighter with the greatsword/PA/W.Spec?

I'm with you, Ma'at. It's the munchkins that do this all the time. Yet another example of changing the rules because of the abusers and not the normal gamers. We've had a half-dozen of more different campaigns in 3.0. There have been a few rapiers, a falchion or two, and several scimitar-wielding Druids, but by and large, not too many. And none of them abused the crit rules and had 12-20 threat ranges.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well, I really didn't have trouble with this, except that everyone and their granddaddy used scimitars or falchions, just for the threat range. (Not all, but non-cleric meleers anyway. Clerics used deitys weapon and archers used, well, bows )

yes but they did it because they thought it was cool, not because of some numerical imbalance that mad eit better. So yeah lets make a rule that takes away something some find cool, even though its not unbalanced just because a designer thought it ws uncool.

 

[Staffan]

When choosing your weapon, you have a choice. You can either take a 20/X4 weapon such as a scythe, and have a low potential to threaten a critical, or you can take a 19-20/X2 weapon like a longsword, which doesn't do as much damage when it criticals, but it will critical more often.

The thing is that in the core rules, the longsword and battle-axe are balanced with one another - one crits more often, the other crits harder, but they do the same average damage (ignoring corner cases where you either have a threat range big enough that some of it is lost because you're missing, or you're fighting things that are so wussy that a triple-crit is wasted on them). That's why both are OK as martial weapons of the same size - they're just as good.

Changing Improved Crit to a flat addition to the threat range messes up that balance - it makes the battle axe just flat-out better. It will universally make axes the weapon of choice for highly-trained warriors (e.g. those who can get Improved Crit and/or Keen weapons).

Note that this philosophy shows up now and then in other places in the rules. Ever looked at the flaming burst weapon ability and noticed that it does more damage when applied to a big-crit weapon (+1d10 on an x2 crit, +2d10 on an x3 crit and +3d10 on an x4 crit)? That's for precisely the same reason - low threat range/big crit weapons should get the same utility out of the burst as high threat range/small crit weapons.

 

[Angcuru]

WotC has finally flipped.

To me this seems like another one of those unneeded changes that WotC does "just because".

This change basically says that Improved critical will not stack with keen-style enchantments, and nerfs the high-crit weapons. AXES FOR EVERYONE! Bull. Wasn't gonna use 3.5, was gonna take a look. Now I'm not gonna even take a look. WotC has gone berserk. Time to put it to sleep. *Takes out high-powered Tranquilizer Sniper Rifle.* I need a spotter. Any volunteers?

 

[Lotus]

If the wielder has Improved Crit, a +1 flaming shock falchion does better average damage than a +1 keen flaming falchion anyway.

Haven't run the numbers on scythes yet, so let's see. Assume edition 3.0 with STR 22, BAB 12, WF/WS/Improved Crit, vs. AC 25.

+1 keen flaming shock scythe: 2d4+1d6+12, average damage 20.5, crit 18-20/x4, average crit damage 68. Hits on rolls of 5, 10 and 15. Average hits per round = 1.65. Average crits per round = .2475. Average overall damage/round: 50.655

+1 flaming shock scythe: 2d4+2d6+12, average damage 24, crit 19-20/x4, average crit damage still 68. Average crits per round = .165. Average overall damage/round: 50.82.

So much for stacking crits! Of course the one thing that's overlooked here is the chance to cause fort saves vs. massive damage; the more frequently those 68-damage crits happen the more those appear.

But in 3.5, that same fighter can get GWF and GWS. Average damage will be 26, average crit damage will be 76. With GWF he will hit on rolls of 4, 9 and 14, so average hits/round goes up to 1.8, average crits/round go up to .18. Average overall damage/round: 60.48. Crit damage alone has almost caught back up with 18-20/x2, and the difference is far surpassed by GWS.

 

[Simulacrum]

Bravo to WotC!

Very good change. One that I suggested years ago, along with anything that uses multipliers, should be undone.
Yet again things should work out as +bonus only.

Now if they just would finaly nerf Timestop and Disjunction....grrr!

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I'm with you, Ma'at. It's the munchkins that do this all the time. Yet another example of changing the rules because of the abusers and not the normal gamers. We've had a half-dozen of more different campaigns in 3.0. There have been a few rapiers, a falchion or two, and several scimitar-wielding Druids, but by and large, not too many. And none of them abused the crit rules and had 12-20 threat ranges.

It's not abuse. It's not a particularly good strategy.