Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack?

[Xeriar]

Changing the rule either improves the game or it doesn't. So if you vote "yes" you thought the revision was an improvement. If "no", then the rule obviously didn't need to be changed. Hence the two categories. Nice and simple. For people who play in games where no one ever increases their threat ranges, the issue is irrelevant, and there is no need for a third category to cater to people who have no basis for an opinion either way.

Mixed feelings don't exist in your world, either?

There are a number of reasons for a middle ground. Already, a great number of people are waiting to see how the rules will turn out as a whole.

Also, you give 'this change is a definate improvement' and 'there has never been the slightest reason for this change'. You didn't give 'yes' or 'no'. You were obviously quite emotionally charged when making this poll, and apparently still are.

Personally, I'm just trying to point out that other views exist. It is an important construct to consider (and this is a -roleplaying- forum for crying out loud, but that's another arguement entirely).

 

[Numion]

I guess the end results may be for the better here. I voted no though, because I don't like the idea that there's no need to take the feat if you've got keen weapons. In essence, the you've bought the feat, and somehow that doesn't seem right.

I may change my mind though, but we'll see. So no it is, for now,.

 

[Thresher]

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

I doubt if Wotc is brave enough to formally rule that Hong must play with both hands.

 

[Grishnak]

Mouseferatu I was thinking of a similar change but slightly different in the fact that Improved Crit improves the roll threat range e.g 19-20 to 18-20 and keen meaning it is sharper or whatever increasing the damage modifier so a x2 crit would become a x3. Might be a bit over the top but hell I'd prefer the damage that way with a lower chance of the roll than a 12-20 meaning at least 2-3 crits a round at later levels.

 

[Ravellion]

I have heavily house-rules 3E since the day it came out because frankly too much of the rules were powergamerish or munchkiny to me.

Agreed here. I'd love to see Green Ronin or Kenzer get the rights to D&D- they would do a top-notch job with it.

Either you haven't seen the Kalamar's player's guide, or you were being sarcastic.

Rav

 

[Ravellion]

Personally, I'm just trying to point out that other views exist. It is an important construct to consider (and this is a -roleplaying- forum for crying out loud, but that's another arguement entirely).

indeed. I am glad that threat ranges no longer stack, but I don't consider the rule to be a definite improvement. The rule is almost just as crap.

Rav

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: 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.

That's what I don't get - what criteria did they use to decide "too good"?

Every time I run the numbers, the keen weapon comes out worse off than a weapon with an extra plus, whether or not you throw improved critical into the mix. I know my Ftr4/Rog11 would be doing more damage if he had a +4 rapier than his +3 keen (especially with all the fighting of undead we've been doing lately) and that's with a boosted strength and weapon specialization giving him a total of +9 on damage mods. The only time it makes a difference is when the extra +1 to hit is 'wasted' because I'd hit on a 2 or more anyway.

Where are all these game-destroying unbalanced fighters, and are they really that bad, or is it a knee-jerk reaction to "OMG! Look how often Bob crits!"?

 

[comrade raoul]

I don't think the existing 3.0 rules are a problem either, for reasons others have pointed out. To summarize: there's nothing unbalanced about the current rules; and the 3.5e change (a) unfairly penalizes crit-oriented characters, (b) makes little conceptual sense, (c) weakens a perfectly balanced feat and not-especially-powerful weapon enhancement. So the current rules are certainly not anything I'm going to change.

That said, if Andy Collins really wants to make critical hits rarer and more special, there are ways to do it without doing much damage to the quality of the game. Consider this system, for example:

• Improved Critical increases a weapon's critical hit multiplier by one.
• The keen enhancement increases a weapon's critical threat range by one.

Consider the effects of these rulings on the various classes of threat ranges and multipliers:

• Base critical: 20/x2 (+5% critical damage); keen enhancement: 19-20/x2 (+10% critical damage); Improved Critical: 20/x3 (+10% critical damage); both benefits: 19-20/x3 (+20% critical damage).
• Base critical: 19-20/x2 (+10% critical damage); keen enhancement: 18-20/x2 (+15% critical damage); Improved Critical: 19-20/x3 (+20% critical damage); both benefits: 18-20/x3 (+30% critical damage).
• Base critical: 20/x3 (+10% critical damage); keen enhancement: 19-20/x3 (+20% critical damage); Improved Critical: 20/x4 (+15% critical damage); both benefits: 19-20/x4 (+30% critical damage).
• Base critical: 18-20/x2 (+15% critical damage); keen enhancement: 17-20/x2 (+20% critical damage); Improved Critical: 18-20/x3 (+30% critical damage); both benefits: 17-20/x3 (+40% critical damage).
• Base critical: 20/x4 (+15% critical damage); keen enhancement: 19-20/x4 (+30% critical damage); Improved Critical: 20/x5 (+20% critical damage); both benefits: 19-20/x5 (+40% critical damage).

This system has some real problems: it increases similarity between weapons compared to the original system, and it makes the keen enhancement better than Improved Critical for some weapons (those with high multipliers) and worse for others (those with high threat ranges). But it does keep high threat-range weapons balanced with high-multiplier weapons (which d20 Modern's "flat +1 to threat range" version fails to do), and it would probably make Andy Collins happy.

But, personally, I don't think making the man behind such brilliant design decisions as weapon familiarity, the unnecessary power boost to dwarves, or the entire damn Epic Level Handbook happy is worth anyone's time.

 

[ForceUser]

Are you glad increased threat ranges (eg keen+Improved Critical) will not stack in the Revised D&D Rules?

Knee-jerk reaction: I've always thought 12-20 threat ranges were kind of cool, and not really overpowered. It's not like anyone in any of the 3E campaigns I've played in found this a compelling enough reason to play a scimitar or falchion guy. So this is an annoying change because once again it feels like 3.5E is limiting options.

That said, maybe the professional game designers and legion of playtesters know something I don't.

 

[Fenes 2]

Re: Re: Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack?

That said, maybe the professional game designers and legion of playtesters know something I don't.

I don't care what the legion of playtesters and the professional game designers know - I only care about what I have fun with while gaming. Many things of 3.5E detract from my enjoyment of the game, the threat-range change included.