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

[Staffan]

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).

(Snip more math stuff)

Unless your threat range is so big that some of it spills over into misses (which is a definite possibility with 18-20 weapons increased twice), the proportional extra damage you get from crits on average can be calculated with:
Threat_possibilities/20*(Multiplier-1)

Threat_possibilities would be equal to 21-minimum threat range (so it's 1 for a 20 weapon, or 9 for a 12-20).

So, for a keen scimitar with improved critical, you get an average increase in damage of 9/20*1 = 45%.

 

[Fenes 2]

You know, it suddenly dawned me that the "it should be special" "reason" has similar spin-offs.

The lack of changes for the half-orc has been explained by the fact that apparently enough players choose them. (I am not sure if WotC or posters here justified half-elves' mechanical disadvantages with "they should be rare", but it goes in a similiar direction.)

 

[Sabaron]

Prove it.

Err... has anyone proved that Andy Collins wrought this change all by himself yet? Or are you still pumping (bullets, fireballs, bazooka rockets) into that poor messenger boy? Yeeesh, I'm glad I don't have *that* job.

I still wouldn't mind an explanation from the design team as to why they did this, since, as Mike Sullivan has graciously proved to us with hard mathematics, it was hardly broken before. "Keen" weapons are now like "Mighty Cleaving" weapons; I doubt you'll see many of them.

 

[rushlight]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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. Players should be able to use their abilities, but their abilities should also be balanced. Sure I can house-rule the crit thing and make them not stack, but when a mechanic is broken, it should be fixed, not leave it to the DMs to go annoying players by changing their abilities. That's what designers are paid for. If you want your fighters to do 300 or more points of damage at a time, then YOU house-rule that, and you'll make happy players. The rest of us can follow the rules for a more balanced play.

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? ALL of them use mechanics and design rules and logic that they feel is right - regardless of it's internal logic. There aren't any democratic games where all the rules were proposed to the public for a final vote (Fox's American RPG, anyone?). Designers design what they like, and players buy what they like. And if the two coincide, then you've got a selling game. If they don't then the game flops. If you feel you can do better, then you design a game that YOU like, and publish it, and let others decide if they like what you like. Who knows, you could be the one to create the next revolution in RPGs, and get rich and famous in the process (or as rich and famous as any of the other designers!)

 

[zorlag]

-

Ok, this change is my least favourite so far. It is simply a slight nerf on ability that is not very powerful by itself. Only time I can see it as "abusive" is when combined with lots of effects that are dealt out with successful critical and are not balanced like burst enhancements (so that all weapons benefit more or less equally despite more numerous crits by certain weapons). But that is the problem of those enhancements, not in the way critical ranges are modified by various effects and abilities. They could have said that "Improved Critical" feat gives "competence bonus" and Keen weapon gives "enhancement" bonus, both which stack. This would lessen the effect of multiple magical enhancements on critical range (aforementioned Assassin's Senses for example). This is a rule that I won't be using, simply because the change is meaningless.

Z.

 

[rushlight]

"This is a rule that I won't be using, simply because the change is meaningless."

And that's the beautiful thing.

One thing people don't seem to understand (specifically anyone who complains about "nerfing") is that it is inherently better for the rule system to be a bit more harsh than the average DM. Players don't usually piss and moan when the DM says, "Well, I don't mind letting you all crit on a d20 roll of 10 or higher, so we'll ignore those stacking rules." But for DMs that prefer a balanced game, players might complain if the DM said, "Well, I don't like all those stacking crit bonuses, so I'm going to house-rule that so they don't stack anymore."

In effect, it's much better when the house-rules give the players a bonus, rather than removing a bonus. Let the written rules of the game remove bonuses.

 

[Storm Raven]

OK, since I was the one who said it was abusive, I'll concede that you're correct. Having those two are not abusive. However, if every one of your characters has a Keen Falchion and Imp Crit with it (or rapier, or scimitar), that's abusive. Or at the very least, it's a good example of constantly exploiting the rules out of munchinism, not roleplaying and character development.

Only if you interpret "munchkin" to mean "doing the same damage as other fighters of similar level with similarly powered weapons".

 

[zorlag]

-

"One thing people don't seem to understand (specifically anyone who complains about "nerfing") is that it is inherently better for the rule system to be a bit more harsh than the average DM. Players don't usually piss and moan when the DM says, "Well, I don't mind letting you all crit on a d20 roll of 10 or higher, so we'll ignore those stacking rules." But for DMs that prefer a balanced game, players might complain if the DM said, "Well, I don't like all those stacking crit bonuses, so I'm going to house-rule that so they don't stack anymore."

Believe me, I like harsh games. And most of my house-rules power down abilities or spells. I always rather remove house rules than add more of them to game, unless necessesary (Stuff like 3E Harm got instantly house ruled for example). Also, 3E stacking rules work just fine (as has been demonstrated) and everyone is used to it. So in this sense, changing it just because it "feels" wrong to some people doesn't make much sense. I'm also gathering from your post that you think I.Crit and Keen stacking is somehow wrong (correct me if this is not the case).

"In effect, it's much better when the house-rules give the players a bonus, rather than removing a bonus. Let the written rules of the game remove bonuses."

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).
I always explain my houserules if someone is interested. I also will reconsider them as well, if someone points out a good reason for it. And I haven't gotten many complaints about them from players once they understand why I did that or this thing. One thing to always keep in mind is that you don't change things just because it initially feels wrong. Examine carefully if it really is a problem, or just a knee-jerk reaction. This change in 3Revised seems just like that, or can anyone show me real mechanical reason for it?

Z.

 

[Numion]

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.

Thanks for the analysis. Opponents at higher levels have lousy ACs oftentimes though, and weapons are +5 due to GMWs. But still it was a good analysis, it just sometimes seemed that powerattacks might affect it a lot, but I don't know.

Your analysis showed that it isn't that bad anyway.

 

[Elvinis75]

Originally posted by Mike Sullivan

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

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?