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

[Zhure]

You did take the Hard Road on this character build.

Yeah, I gave up a whole 1 BAB and gained three levels of cleric and a free weapon focus. I still got into WM at 7th level with room to spare and no wasted feats.

Being self-sufficient is fine if you play with a bunch of bastards who you can't count on...

And I do, as you well know.

... or if you are playing mano a mano with just the DM and you. If you're playing with a group you can atleast half depend on you can eliminate much of the cost in class abilites you'd have to cough up. A few Wands of Keen, Assn Sense and a willing Cleric or Sorcerer or Rogue in the party and you can take just pure Fighter or Weapon Master.

/quote]

Could've done so, but saw no reason to. The 'cost in class abilities' was a 'gain in class abilities.' The build I presented had a few spells, minor turning, better saves, and so forth. A pure Fighter-Weapon Master would've had worse saves and a +1 better BAB and perhaps 2 more feats, none of which would've changed the critical aspect of the character.

I honestly dont understand the Pissing and Moaning about Threat Ranges not stacking opon each other. You're still able to Double your Threat Range, you just are not able to Tripple it or Quadruple it anymore.

The "P&M" is because Andy Collins made a change to a game mechanic based on his preferences, not on mathematics. Because he didn't like PCs critting "all the time" (all the time obviously means less than one time in about four, assuming your primary attack hits on a 10+). As it's been shown here, a super crit range isn't powerful. If anything, it's substandard unless you're wielding a scythe, so this ability was nerfed solely for flavor reasons.

As it stands in 3e, the rapier/scimitar/falchion class of weapons don't get used very often because they aren't as good a choice as short swords/ long swords/great swords. This change for 3.5 eliminates any reason to take them from a mechanical POV.

Greg

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The real reason that others and I think that this is a moronic decision is because it's a solution looking for a problem. The only problem with 12-20 criticals is that Andy Collins doesn't think criticals are "special" if they occur on a 12-20.

It's another case of characters having fewer options rather than more and this one doesn't even have any balance justification. It also takes what was an excellent feat (Improved Critical) and makes it of highly questionable value.

One could just as well say "it's not special when characters can hit on a 2+" so Weapon Focus, Enhancement bonusses, and attribute bonusses to hit will no longer stack. Needless to say, after that change, Weapon focus wouldn't be nearly as good.

There's no balance problem with high crit ranges or high crit multipliers (which were actually easier to make deadly--a weapon master whose scythe has a 16-20 crit range is more deadly than a falchion master with a 10-20 crit range); scythes, falchions, scimitars, and picks aren't displacing greatswords, greataxes, longswords, and battle axes from the preferred weapon charts any time soon.

I honestly dont understand the Pissing and Moaning about Threat Ranges not stacking opon each other. You're still able to Double your Threat Range, you just are not able to Tripple it or Quadruple it anymore.

 

[Ravellion]

The "P&M" is because Andy Collins made a change to a game mechanic based on his preferences, not on mathematics. Because he didn't like PCs critting "all the time" (all the time obviously means less than one time in about four, assuming your primary attack hits on a 10+). As it's been shown here, a super crit range isn't powerful. If anything, it's substandard unless you're wielding a scythe, so this ability was nerfed solely for flavor reasons.

If once every round (due to multiple attacks at high level) isn't all the time, what is? How "Critical" is that?

Devil's Advocate Rav

 

[Mike Sullivan]

There's no balance problem with high crit ranges or high crit multipliers (which were actually easier to make deadly--a weapon master whose scythe has a 16-20 crit range is more deadly than a falchion master with a 10-20 crit range); scythes, falchions, scimitars, and picks aren't displacing greatswords, greataxes, longswords, and battle axes from the preferred weapon charts any time soon.

Word.

Also, if they were going to make changes which directly impacted the inter-weapon balance, why in the world didn't they change the baffling disparity between Greataxe and Greatsword?

With greataxes already not measuring up, and now falchions and scythes nerfed, it feels like in the two-handed weapon department, we're almost back to the Bad Old 2e Days, when there were very few reasonable weapon choices. 3e was a HUGE improvement in this regard, and I think that this change was a step backwards.

 

[Pax]

If once every round (due to multiple attacks at high level) isn't all the time, what is? How "Critical" is that?

Devil's Advocate Rav

Given a threat range of 10-20 (Weapon Master with Improved Critical and a Keen weapon, base threat range 18-20; triple threat range and +2 steps more is 10-20).

Given you need to roll a 10+ to hit (IOW, "I hit, I threat").

Given five attacks per round (haste or a Speed weapon, full attack, 16th level or higher, not dual wielding).

Let's see, 55% chance to hit with each swing, 55% chance to confirm the "inevitable" threat, for five swings ... that;s about 2.75 hits per round on average, of which, roughly 1.5 are criticals.

That;s not all the time; that's "just better than half the time", in a situation where a 10+ is needed to hit.

Odds are, for a 16th-20th level fighter, either you need a lot lower, or a lot higher, to hit.

If you need a 5+ to hit ... you should get 4 hits per round, of which 2.75 will be threats. Of those 2.75 threats, you will get 2.2 critical hits.

Just over half again -- 2.2 crits out of 4 hits.

If you need a 15+ to hit, you should get 1.5 hits per round, of which all will be threats. Of those threats, you should get .45 critical hits.

Whoops, gee look at that, it it's hard to hit, your rate of getting criticals goes down, from just over half, to just under a third!

And it's still not all the time. "All the time" woudl be, every swign of the weapon is a critical hit.

Given the number of creatures immune to critical hits, I just don't see the PROBLEM with such broad threat ranges. WTH is the big deal, really?

It seems, at least, to be this:

Andy doesn't like it.

...

And so far, at least, that seems to mean "it gets changed, period".

#$#& that noise; if Andy doesn't like something, let him do what we ALL do: make house rules for HIS campaign; he shouldn't be screwing the CORE RULES, solely because he dislikes something.

FFS. Did WOTC ever think to seek feedback form the players BEFORE making these half-baked changes ... ?!?!?

...

Or did Andy not like THAT, either?

 

[Camarath]

[3.5] Threat ranges no longer stack!
Read it and weep ...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple effects that expand critical threat ranges no longer stack.

There were simply too many characters running around with 12-20 threat ranges, and when you're threatening a crit on nearly half your rolls, it's no longer "special."

__________________
Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast RPG R&D


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wise change, if you ask me.

I am sorry to ask this but, where did this quote come from? Can someone give me a link or some other form confirmation on this?

 

[Numion]

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.

Nah, I know my players. They did it because of the threat ranges. Two-handed falchion wielder is better than a straight greatsword user, because the modifiers are more important than damage dice at higher levels.

I don't see though how this "fix" would fix it, since the threat range is still better with falchion.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Nah, I know my players. They did it because of the threat ranges. Two-handed falchion wielder is better than a straight greatsword user, because the modifiers are more important than damage dice at higher levels.

Two characters, both with 28 Str, both Ftr level 16, one of them with a Greatsword +4, the other with a Keen Falchion +3.

Total AB's:

Greatsword Guy: +16 (BAB), +1 (WF), +4 (Greatsword), +9 (Str) = +30/+25/+20/+15

Falchion Guy: +16 (BAB), +1 (WF), +3 (Falchion), +9 (Str) = +29/+24/+19/+14

Damages:

Greatsword Guy: 2d6 + 13 (Str) + 4 (Greatsword) +2 (WS), 17-20/x2 crit

Falchion Guy: 2d4 + 13 (Str) + 3 (Falchion) + 2 (WS), 12-20/x2 crit


Expected damage per round against an AC 25 (ie, low AC!) guy:

1. If he's not susceptible to crits.

Greatsword guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 7 + 13 + 4 + 2 = 26 * .95 = 24.7

Greatsword guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 5+, 10+, damage is 26 per hit = 26 * .95 + 26 * .95 + 26 * .8 + 26 * .55 = 84.5

Falchion guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 5 + 13 + 3 + 2 = 23 * .95 = 21.85

Falchion guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 6+, 11+, damage is 23 per hit = 23 * .95 + 23 * .95 + 23 * .75 + 23 * .5 = 72.45

No surprises there, of course. That's just for reference.


2. If he IS susceptible to crits

Greatsword guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 7 + 13 + 4 + 2 = 26 * .95 * 1.2 = 29.64

Greatsword guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 5+, 10+, damage is 26 per hit = (26 * .95 + 26 * .95 + 26 * .8 + 26 * .55) * 1.2 = 101.4

Falchion guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 5 + 13 + 3 + 2 = 23 * .95 * 1.45 = 31.6825

Falchion guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 6+, 11+, damage is 23 per hit = (23 * .95 + 23 * .95 + 23 * .75 + 23 * .5) * 1.45 = 105.0525

Comments: Falchion guy is ahead of the game... by 7% on a partial attack and 3.6% on a full attack. Woo hoo?


Now, versus an AC 30 opponent who is susceptible to crits:

Partial attacks are exactly like the AC 25 guy, so the falchion guy is still ahead of the game there.

Greatsword guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 5+, 10+, 15+, 26 damage per hit = (26 * .95 + 26 * .8 + 26 * .55 + 26*.3) * 1.2 = 81.12

Falchion guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 6+, 11+, 16+... And that last one effectively lowers his crit range. 23 damage per hit, and that works out to: (23 * .95 + 23 * .75 + 23 * .5) * 1.45 + .25 * 23 * 1.25 = 80.5575

Comments: Now the falchion guy is behind the greatsword guy in full attack damage. And it only gets worse as he fights higher AC opponents.


All of the above are with 3.0 rules, mind you.

Now, what am I saying here? That falchions are bad? No. They're a viable option. That 6% damage on a partial attack is pretty good, and they're a gamble on whether or not your GM is going to throw a lot of crit-immune people at you, whether you'll be facing high-AC opponents or low, etc.

What I am saying is that they aren't munchkin. Though I recognize that your players may have got them out of that impulse, they did not particularly succeed (unless they know the game very well and know that they'll have lots of partial actions and lots of low-AC opponents who are susceptible to crits). Whether you ought to, in 3.0 rules, use a greatsword of a falchion (or scythe) at high levels is a matter of individual choice and style. The benefits, if any, are slight enough that you probably won't notice them -- and there may not be any benefits, over-all!

By nerfing the stacked crit thresholds, 3.5 doesn't make weapon choice any more of a matter of many options with good and bad points for PC's -- they make it far more uniform. Of the four main basic power-weapons that are two-handed and no-reach (greatsword, greataxe, falchion, scythe), greatsword stands out as fairly inarguably the best at all levels.

Unless there are other changes we don't know about, of course.

 

[Kai Lord]

If once every round (due to multiple attacks at high level) isn't all the time, what is? How "Critical" is that?

Devil's Advocate Rav

"Critical" does not mean "rare", Keanu.

 

[GameGuru4]

Zhure - you stated in your massive example that assassin's senses would take the threat range from 10-20, to 8-20. Incorrect. Assassin's senses increases threat range by 1 and multiplier by 1. So it'd be 9-20, but he gets his multiplier taken up by 1 as well.

Just thought I'd point that out, since the math in this thread is an important point.