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

[IanB]

People who don't have a lot of feats to throw around might still take keen weapons, or at least buy themselves a scabbard of keen edges or whatever it is called.

 

[Pax]

Re: People will still take improved Crit.

After all, at Epic levels, you can't have Devastating critical without it.

==Aelryinth

I play regularly in an epic arena. The only characetr I've ever even SEEN take devastating critical, was one of mine -- and I only bothered, because the character was an antimagic-field-rune-using "UnMage", who could force people to be vulnerable to his critical hits again. His weapon of choice was an A&Eq Adamantine MErcurial Greatsword, if it matters.

Too many creatures are outright immune to criticals -- or are sentient enough to know that buying a +1 mithril shirt of heavy fortification is WORTH the 37,100gp and then some -- for Devastating Critical to be of much use, by the time you hit epic levels.

 

[Dimwhit]

Personally I think most of the whiners and naysayers are the ones who are going to be affected by the changes. Really who cares if they change the ability to stack crit ranges, does it actually make the game less playable? Heck criticals didn't even exist in the older editions.

You may be right. I actually don't have a character with both Imp Crit and a keen weapon. I do, however, have a Wizard with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus who is getting seriously slammed. And he is anything but overpowered. Of course, he doesn't have three different PrCs to maximize his DCs and such.

On the other hand, I have a fighter who uses a two-handed weapon and uses Power Attack all the time, but I still don't like the new Power Attack rules, so there.

My arguments are primarly based on my perceived logic and intentions behind the changes.

Of course, I'm having fun "debating" all these changes. Gives me something to do at work, and it lets me vent anonymously!

 

[The Sigil]

Here's the only math I need to know for my games... (and believe, me I can do the statistics game)

Doing it the "new way" (non-stacking) reduces the number of die rolls that are going to occur at the gaming table (because there won't be scads of "confirm" rolls), allowing me to "get on with combat" instead of being bogged down in roll after roll after roll.

Based on that statistic alone, I'm in favor of this change.

--The Sigil

 

[Corinth]

Exactly! That's why the designers need to stop changing the rules based on what the powergamers do and start looking at the 'standard' players (however you want to define standard).

This is folly. A competant game designer always recruits the very best powergamers that he can find as playtesters. Why? For the very fact that such gamers shall, without fail, find every last rules exploit and abuse it without mercy. All that the designer needs to do is insist on a rigorous documentation of every game-breaking exploit that the powergaming playtesters find, and then he has all that he needs for him to fix the rules by removing what the playtesters find.

This works because this is what I do for Scott Lynch's Deeds Not Words d20 superhero game; two of the four playtesters are the worst powergamers that I know, and I recruited them for this reason and this purposes. In six months we already found enough exploits to merit a minor revision.

It's all about the stress-testing to destruction. By letting them break the game, you end up with a better game to play all around. Casual gamers won't do this.

 

[The Sigil]

Originally posted by Pax
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.

I disagree.

Since there is at least one player per DM, probably more, that means the majority of customers are players.

Since players want their characters to survive and level up, that means that to cater to what the majority of customers would like would be to write adventures like "the Orc and the 10,000,000,000,000,000 gp."

Just a thought.

--The Sigil

 

[Hypersmurf]

Doing it the "new way" (non-stacking) reduces the number of die rolls that are going to occur at the gaming table (because there won't be scads of "confirm" rolls), allowing me to "get on with combat" instead of being bogged down in roll after roll after roll.

There's already a suggestion in the Core Rules that it can speed up combat to roll your attack and damage rolls at the same time.

If you crit a third of the time, just have a blue attack and damage dice set, and a red critical-confirmation and critical-extra-damage dice set, and roll them all every time

-Hyp.

 

[The Sigil]

There's already a suggestion in the Core Rules that it can speed up combat to roll your attack and damage rolls at the same time.

If you crit a third of the time, just have a blue attack and damage dice set, and a red critical-confirmation and critical-extra-damage dice set, and roll them all every time

-Hyp.

So I have to chase down three dice, one at a time. It's not the rolling that takes a long time, it's the finding the number that came up on the die, comparing it to target DC/AC of X, and then figuring out if I need to look at the next die.

--The Sigil

 

[Grog]

This is folly. A competant game designer always recruits the very best powergamers that he can find as playtesters. Why? For the very fact that such gamers shall, without fail, find every last rules exploit and abuse it without mercy. All that the designer needs to do is insist on a rigorous documentation of every game-breaking exploit that the powergaming playtesters find, and then he has all that he needs for him to fix the rules by removing what the playtesters find.

This works because this is what I do for Scott Lynch's Deeds Not Words d20 superhero game; two of the four playtesters are the worst powergamers that I know, and I recruited them for this reason and this purposes. In six months we already found enough exploits to merit a minor revision.

It's all about the stress-testing to destruction. By letting them break the game, you end up with a better game to play all around. Casual gamers won't do this.

The problem with this idea is that hardcore munchkin powergamers are a minority of the gaming population. Most players aren't going to buy every new supplement that comes out and comb through it looking for new ways to power up their character. Look at the sales figures for the PHB vs. the sales figures for supplemental material. They aren't even close. A large majority of players are working with core rules, with maybe a few splatbooks and a couple of other supplements added on.

Making changes to core rules that will affect every single person who plays the game just to rein in the 10% or so of gamers who "break" the game by powergaming is just stupid. Especially considering that the powergamers will just find new ways to exploit the rules that the revision team didn't think of, while the non-powergamers will be SOL.

And when one of the main people behind the revision can't even give a more compelling reason for a change than, "I didn't like it the way it was before", that just adds insult to injury.

 

[Dimwhit]

The problem with this idea is that hardcore munchkin powergamers are a minority of the gaming population. Most players aren't going to buy every new supplement that comes out and comb through it looking for new ways to power up their character. Look at the sales figures for the PHB vs. the sales figures for supplemental material. They aren't even close. A large majority of players are working with core rules, with maybe a few splatbooks and a couple of other supplements added on.

Making changes to core rules that will affect every single person who plays the game just to rein in the 10% or so of gamers who "break" the game by powergaming is just stupid. Especially considering that the powergamers will just find new ways to exploit the rules that the revision team didn't think of, while the non-powergamers will be SOL.

And when one of the main people behind the revision can't even give a more compelling reason for a change than, "I didn't like it the way it was before", that just adds insult to injury.

**waving my "I love Grog" flag**

By the way, that's "love" in a general, Christian sort of way.