Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack?

[hong]

It could get on your nerves seeing a crit on a 12, but:
a) You still need to confirm the crit
b) Statistacialy it's been shown to be not that big a deal.

I think you have to be more precise on what you're talking about here. Statistically, the 12-20 crit range thing is not that big a deal _compared to other weapons_. A rapier/falchion with keen and Improved Crit is not overpoweringly better than a longsword/greatsword with keen and Improved Crit, or an axe with the same.

This change, by the same token, won't change that. The rapier/falchion still won't be overpoweringly better than the longsword/greatsword; everybody's damage is being reduced by the same factor.

What it will do, however, is reduce the lethality somewhat at high levels, which for me, is a plus. The guy playing the fighter gets aggravated when the wizard disintegrates the bad guy in one round. However, the guy playing the wizard might also get aggravated when the fighter blows the bad guy apart with a full attack, including three crits, in one round. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say; if save DCs and a bunch of broken spells are being nerfed, then crits are also fair game.

 

[Thresher]

Speaking about this on the weekend none of the people past or present who used to run 3E ever really considered the crit range that much of an issue. Then again we never really raped the rules to make a monster of it, so its probably not going to be implemented.

Ah just think fellas, once we get out of the beta stage in a few decades 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 etc we'll finally make V1 D&D and all the balance problems will be sorted out.
Fighters will get wiffle bats
Casters will get tennis balls
Rogues will get harsh language
No one will get hurt, the flowers will grow, the butterflys will fly I guess and no one will lose an eye... or a hand and its all good.

That way DM's can have a scary Kobold assassin with a sharp stick dipped in dog poo being a real threat that will put the fear of god into players everywhere.

Unfortunatly theres the PC uprising of V1.1 which leads to the kobold assassin with the sharp stick being dipped in poo being nerfed so that he gets a plastic knife and fork from the local take-away.

 

[hong]

Speaking about this on the weekend none of the people past or present who used to run 3E ever really considered the crit range that much of an issue. Then again we never really raped the rules to make a monster of it, so its probably not going to be implemented.

Ah just think fellas, once we get out of the beta stage in a few decades 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 etc we'll finally make V1 D&D and all the balance problems will be sorted out.
Fighters will get wiffle bats
Casters will get tennis balls
Rogues will get harsh language
No one will get hurt, the flowers will grow, the butterflys will fly I guess and no one will lose an eye... or a hand and its all good.

That way DM's can have a scary Kobold assassin with a sharp stick dipped in dog poo being a real threat that will put the fear of god into players everywhere.

Unfortunatly theres the PC uprising of V1.1 which leads to the kobold assassin with the sharp stick being dipped in poo being nerfed so that he gets a plastic knife and fork from the local take-away.

I do not need a rulebook to bolster my TEN-INCH TITANIUM PENIS, bay-bee.

 

[Gnarlo]

My players already know that when they see a kobold with dog poo on a stick to be afraid, be very afraid.... It won't take nerfin' no crit ranges to do that

/gnarlo!

 

[Ryan Koppenhaver]

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.

With a 16 strength and improved critical, a character with a +1 Keen Shocking Burst Falchion, (assuming he hits on a 10 or better), does an average of 11.0 points of damage per primary attack.

Comparatively, a character with 16 strength, improved critical, and a +1 Keen Shocking Burst greatsword, (again assuming he hits on a 10 or better), does an average of 10.9 points of damage per primary attack.

So the falchion wins-- barely-- in this instance.

Now, let's change the parameters around a bit. Even an NPC fighter will probably have at least an 18 strength by the time he gets improved critical and a +4 weapon, plus he'll probably have weapon specialization, too. (For simplicity, we'll ignore changes to the characters' attack bonus, and continue to assume they need to roll a 10 to hit with a +1 weapon.)

Now, in addition to the above changes to both fighters (which all favor the falchion wielder), we'll make one change to the greatsword wielder-- we'll change his weapon to either a +1 Keen Flaming Shocking greatsword or a +2 Flaming Shocking greatsword (both still +4 equivalent).

The new average damages per primary attack are: Falchion 13.9, Greatsword (Keen) 15.0, Greatsword (+2) 15.8

The bottom line is that optimizing for criticals is simply not an overpowered strategy. In fact, except for certain narrow circumstances (viz. very low AC opponents, broken "effect on critical" weapons) it's generally weaker than simply optimizing for damage.

-Ryan
(damage calcluation spreadsheet attached.)

 

[Ryan Koppenhaver]

Addendum: Here's a few more data points.

[color=white]
+1 K SB Greatsword	13.5
+1 K SB Falchion 	13.9

+2 SB Greatsword	14.1
+2 SB Falchion		14.1

+1 K F S Greatsword 	15.0
+1 K F S Falchion 	15.2

+2 F S Falchion 	15.7
+2 F S Greatsword 	15.8
[/color]

 

[ergeheilalt]

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

That seems fair enough. I still think the present system is better for critical effects, range, and damage; however WotC disagrees. Heck, I would rather them bump up the effective "plus" of keen to +2 and still keep the stacking bonus.

Ryan Koppenhaver> Thanks for the statistical bits. I'm not very good at that kinda stuff; and it does demonstrate the fact that the system is not broken.

Erge

 

[Xeriar]

With a 16 strength and improved critical, a character with a +1 Keen Shocking Burst Falchion, (assuming he hits on a 10 or better), does an average of 11.0 points of damage per primary attack.

2.5+2.5+4+1+3.5 = 13.5 - average non-crit damage.
5+5+8+2+5.5 = 25.5 - average crit damage.

1/11 = .090909...

2/11 * 13.5 = 2.454545...
9/11 * 25.5 = 20.8363636...
20.8... + 2.4... = ~23

If you include missing (ie, 1/20ths), then it's 12.825 - 17.55 if you hit on a 3.

Comparatively, a character with 16 strength, improved critical, and a +1 Keen Shocking Burst greatsword, (again assuming he hits on a 10 or better), does an average of 10.9 points of damage per primary attack.

3.5+3.5+4+1+3.5 = 15.5 - average non-crit damage
7+7+8+2+5.5 = 29.5 - average crit damage

5/11 * 15.5 = 7.0454545...
6/11 * 29.5 = 16.09090909...

16+7 = ~23

12.725 if you include missing... 18.15 if you hit on a 3.

---

I'll have to keep this in mind when playing with threat ranges.

 

[seankreynolds]

No, don't change it

I don't like the change.

I know the reasons why the change was made (apparently stacking those threat ranges made crit-based fighters too good), but I don't agree with that decision.

I played a rapier-fighter in Monte's Ptolus campaign for over two years. When I left Washington, the group was all about 12th-14th level. My rogue/ftr/clr had a +2 keen rapier (a +3-equivalent weapon) and Improved Critical (rapier), so he critted on a 12 and had an attack bonus of +21 on his first attack with it. That meant that 45% of my first attacks in each round were a possible crit, and given that we were usually fighting creatures with ACs in the 25-30 range, it meant I had a 50%-75% chance to score a crit with that first attack. Which meant I did an extra 1d6+5 (Strength and magic) damage on that attack.

Compare that to Erik Mona, whose aasimar paladin (about the same level, almost exactly the same attack bonus) had a +1 holy greatsword (a +3-equivalent weapon). On EVERY attack, Erik was doing 4d6 damage (+ Strength and magic) (2d6 from greatsword, 2d6 from holy against evil creatures, and we were usually fighting evil creatures).

So we both were sub-optimal "fighters" (he was a paladin, I was multiclass), but had comparable attack values. But he routinely did much more damage than I (in fact, the only reason I sometimes caught up was when I could get a +3d6 sneak attack in now and then). Without the stacking threat range, I would have been better off with a +1 flaming shock weapon than my +2 keen weapon and Imp Crit.

The finesse-fighter needs threat ranges from those sources to stack or he can't keep up with the tank fighter. In effect, not letting these two abilities stack is punishing the finesse-fighter for choosing (at low level) to be a finesse-fighter ... eventually your attack form is worse than the standard fighter, even though the finesse fighter had to spend 2 feats (Weap Finesse and Imp Crit) to keep up with the standard fighter.

 

[Leopold]

Works for me! I am about to HR all the crit stuff anyway. none of this "double crit range" nonsense. If it says that your crit range increases then it goes down by 1 not double BS.

Long Sword=19-20
Keen+"=18-20
Improved crit+"=17-20

etc etc etc.

Much easier this way. Just move it down 1 instead of 2 or 4 or whatever the heck it is.