Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack?

[LuYangShih]

The stated point of 3.5 was to provide rules changes and revisions where neccessary. How in any way is it neccessary to change the critical threat tables? I definitely do not like this change, and in fact was the final straw for me on 3.5E.

 

[James McMurray]

There should have been a third option for "donn't care either way". On the one hand I can see it speeding up combat, but on the other hand, some people like to make crit monsters. It really won't affect our play group all that much.

 

[LGodamus]

I never had a problem with crit ranges in 3.0 honestly, and it really doesnt make much sense to change them, but I will wait and reserve final judgement for the playtest.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I'm still in favor of 3.5, but this still kinda bites...

I think I'll make a +1 enchantment that increases the damage multiplier and give that instead of keen...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I was always a little puzzled by improved critical and keen. I mean that they both did the same thing but the feat had difficult requirements while the weapon ability was so cheap.

I guess 3.5 is going to scrub the weapon ability and keep the feat for those who really want it, no?

 

[Nifft]

Limit special effects, not crit range

I think the key here is to decouple "Critical Hit" from the variety of special effects which occur on a critical hit.

Basically, anything that doesn't do extra damage on a crit needs a different mechanism. Elemental Burst weapons aren't broken, since the extra damage they do is based NOT ONLY on the critical threat range, but also on the critical damage multiplier.

Effects from the SRD which need a new mechanic include Vorpal and Mind/Body/Soul Feeder weapons.

-- Nifft

 

[Agamon]

I think it's humorous that people find this so offensive as to disuade them from buying the 3.5 books.

Surely everyone hasn't forgotten the pre-3E motto: "Rule 0" This isn't that hard of a change to ignore if you don't like it...

 

[Darrin Drader]

Do you feel the revision took care of the problem or was more "a step in the right direction?" Do you think threatening a crit on a 15 or higher at 8th level or above is too often? If not, then don't you think simply changing the Falchion, Scimitar, Rapier, and Kukri to 19-20/x2 would have made more sense? There are 61 weapons in the PHB. Four of them have crit ranges of 18-20. Why overcompensate for the other 57? It just seems if four weapons are broken, you fix the four weapons and leave the rest alone.

This thread went to page 2 so quickly that I missed your question.

I do think that no weapon should have a crit range any greater than 19-20/X2. I can live with the larger crit range on everything in the PHB but the falchion because the amount of damage it does is relatively low. The falchion, IMO just does too much damage for a weapon with a crit range of 18-20. When you start applying feats that get the crit range down to the 12-20 range, and then you add something like shocking burst, it just gets obscene. Such a weapon does 2d4 points of damage + Str modifier (we'll just assume this is a fighter type, so probably has at least a +3 to Strength), + 1d6 points from shock X2 + 1d10, so this has a maximum amount of damage of 50. The average amount would be 28. If you allow the increase threat range to stack, you're dealing with a character that deals an average of 28 points of damage against an opponent half the time they make an attack.

OK, no big deal compared to wizards, right? I would argue that this isn't true. Yes, wizards do a great deal of damage with many of their spells, but they are limited to a number of uses per day. The increased crit range plus shocking burst, or flaming burst, etc. deals a lot of damage most of the time. So my argument is that it isn't balanced against the monsters, and it isn't balanced with the rest of the party unless their magic items are also that broken.

I wonder why that is.

I would argue that this is because of 2 things: (1) DMs don't like to take the time to create a lot of NPCs to have their players fight, and (2) NPC characters are often the uber-villains, making them a much more rare adversary. So, because of this, I think most DMs find it easier to use monsters against the PCs.

I do realize that someone, if not many of you, are the exception to this generalization.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I feel the change was necessary, though I wish they would have come up with some other stacking rule rather than making either Keen or Improved Critical worthless, since having one will preclude desiring the other. I feel most people will opt to spend the money, xp and time to make a Keen weapon rather than spend the feat. That is too bad considering Improved Critical was one of the more popular feats prior to the change.

 

[Xeriar]

So, if 18-20 is *too* big for you, does that mean weapons that only critical on a 20 and do 3 or 4 times the damage is fair?

Yup!

I dislike 18-20 not because it's 'unfair', it's because people should be afraid of critical hits (on top of not giving/recieving them often).

In fact, I am thinking of rolling up the 18-20 weapons into 19-20/x3 weapons, or something...

Lances should have an x4 crit too. Maybe bump up their size and give them another special rule (I mean, you can't use them very effectively dismounted...)