Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack?

[Belphanior]

Indeed, a good change.
Now perhaps we will finally see some respect for the people who choose to fight with a keen greataxe.

"Oh, only 19-20? Heh, my fighter already has 12-20 with his falchion, and it'll be 10-20 when I take my next level in weaponmaster."


Maybe some epic feat or a really special prestige class that could still improve the critical range, but I feel that critical hits should be a bit more special than 50% of the time, thank you very much.

 

[Kai Lord]

I agree with Baraendur... crits should be special occurances and bring excitement and joy to players (not the ho hum, I got another critical hit, yawn, response).

By that logic no mid-high level characters should ever exist. They routinely do much more extraordinary things than a simple double damage with a sword.

 

[Mercule]

I'm with Kai on this one.

Except for it being the _first_ turkey of the revisions. Weapon Familiarity has my vote for that. Ranks right up there with changing Fireball's range to "Touch".

 

[Winterthorn]

In my not so humble opinion, stacking critical threat bonuses is one of the worst ideas ever and I'm happy they changed it. I've seen combinations that get the critical threat range all the way down to a roll of 12-20. 12 is often less than what the character actually needs to roll to hit a monster. True, you still have to hit for it to be a threat, and you do have to confirm the hit to ensure it's a critical hit, but this still brings us to a game mechanic that allows for crits just as often as not. That is broken. Double or triple damage should be your reward for a high roll rather than a usual occurrence. I think this was definitely the right call for them to make and is just another example of how 3.5 fixes what were shortcomings with the system.

I would agree at low character levels, but once a party's average character level hits the high teens approaching 20th, I expect the melee oriented characters to routinely (say, 40% of the time) threaten criticals on their opponents... And the reverse is true too, "monsters" threatening PCs... Doesn't mean the confirmation roll will work though! (A DM can control things a bit if matters are liable to get out of hand.)

Consequently, while I support refinements to limit abuse and correct serious "blips", I vote this particular change as unnecessary.

-W.

 

[Gothmog]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Baraendur, the critical threat ranges were getting out of control. Your reasoning is very sound, and I would only add one more thing. In 3E, did you ever notice that really only PCs and some select few NPCs ever had a large threat range? Monsters, as a whole, did not. Now, things will be a little more balanced, and monsters won't be getting the shaft as much.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Now, things will be a little more balanced, and monsters won't be getting the shaft as much.

Exactly my point. Of course I would be all for putting it back into the rules if a certain percentage of the monsters started getting increased threat ranges as well. Since that isn't likely to happen, and the number of unnecessary character deaths would increase exponentially if it did, I think it best that crits be reserved for the unusually lucky dice roll.

 

[Remathilis]

Now, it also makes Imp Crit a non-necessary feat for non-fighters (esp. rogues) since a simple spell or enchantment can give the benefit.

Frees up that slot for kewl new feats, like Imp Fient!

Of course, warriors are still going to want it for thier primary weapon (saves a +1 for something else) and maybe just keen/impact a side arm weapon.

I kinda like it, it make critical special again!

 

[Kai Lord]

Crit range for Long Sword + Keen + Improved Critical: 15-20

Crit range for Falchion + Keen + Improved Critical: 12-20

With the revision, Falchions will now have a max crit range of 15-20, the same as the Long Sword in 3.0.

So by their admission there was nothing wrong with a 15-20 threat range. That Long Sword fighter with the 15-20 range in 3.0? NOT A PROBLEM according to WOTC. The problem? FALCHION USERS. A lame weapon in almost any campaign, save for those who still play Al-Quadim. WOTC's response? Revise the Falchion and whopping three other 18-20 weapons to keep them out the naughty range of 12-14? No. That would apparently make too much sense.

So let's nerf the multiple stacking straight across the board. Because a 15-20 crit range is only appropriate if your two-handed sword is curvy.

 

[Winterthorn]

In 3E, did you ever notice that really only PCs and some select few NPCs ever had a large threat range? Monsters, as a whole, did not. Now, things will be a little more balanced, and monsters won't be getting the shaft as much.

While it's true that 3.0 monsters, and perhaps 3.5 monsters, have weaker crit ranges on their attacks--don't PCs encounter NPCs quite frequently in most people's games? Aren't some of the most challenging or dramatic combats against powerful NPCs? I'm not going to pine about monsters when NPC opponents are available to me to fling at the PCs... If a 20th level Fighter has a 12-20 crit range (from various sources) on his longsword, I am not worried about the 20th level NPC Fighter who could reciprocate! Makes for a scarier and more entertaining fight, I think

In my DMing experience, I don't think the crit stacking was broken enough to justify this change in the rules... YMMV

-W.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

Kai,

Your poll is too binary. There is should be some sort of middle ground for those of us who don't think that this was much of a problem either way. Stacking increased critical threat range modifiers was not a particularly effective way to increase damage. Thus eliminating the possibility doesn't really improve the game much. Of course, IMC this was all moot - Keen weapons & PrCs that improved critical threat ranges were nonexistent, so my opinion is scarcely relevant to what seems to be the norm here...