Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack?

[ShadowX]

I believe they should stack, but as someone mentioned above similar sources should not stack. As for a wand using the users DC's, thats a bad example. A wand basically already has the spell cast and stored in the wand, the caster is just unleashing it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Actually Kai Lord, I do see your point, and in your game, it may not be a necessary change. I do feel that it is best for overall game balance in general however, due to the points I discussed above.

By the way, the point about the evil NPCs is an absolutely valid one. However, I often get the feeling that evil (or actually opposing) NPCs are underutilized based on a lot of the comments I see on a routine basis.

 

[A'koss]

I've never really been sold on 3e's critical hit rules (they're too lethal at low levels and tied to closely to the weapon) but I do think that this is a "move in the right direction". I don't think this is the all-perfect fix, but threat ranges we're getting a little silly.

With the new DR rules, the need continue to get better "plusses" on your weapon are no longer really needed. A +1 weapon is all you need to hit DR/Magic. That means you're going to see more weapons with special abilities and I think this is a pre-emptive nerf in that regard. I can see the Wizard's design team forseeing a host of +1, Keen, Flaming Burst, Shocking Burst scimitars at high levels (where you would normally see a +5, keen scimitar) and decided to curb that potential abuse a little.

I also have a feeling that this was just another compromise adjustment where WotC didn't want to make too sweeping a change (like changing all Save or Die spells to damage) as to potentially offend the gaming community at large.

IMO, critical hits should be more closely tied to the skill of the weilder and less lethal at low levels but that's a different matter.


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Apok]

I'm neutral. I didn't have a problem with threat range enhancers stacking before, but I don't have a problem with them being limited now either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think it's that great of an idea because one or two more dice is not that frickin' big of a deal as to overbalance and destroy a campaign.

 

[Destil]

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 worry that this will really reduce the desire for taking improved crit in favor of the scabbard or just getting a keen edge from the wizard (though he now needs a lot more flys, that you 1 min/level duration..).

This is about #4 on the list of bad/misguided changes for me:
1) Spell Focus
2) Spell Durations
3) Weapon Familarity
4) Critical Threat Range

 

[Xeriar]

The entire thread is for people to share their degrees of like/dislike for the change. The poll itself was intended to see the percentages of people who find the revision positive or negative.

Instead of putting yes or no, however, you gave the extreme range of opinions.

And there are a lot of people who just don't care - if 1% are for it, and 2% are against it, the 97% who doesn't care either way speaks pretty loudly.

 

[Xeriar]

If one of your players rolled four natural 20's in a row, would you say, "actually that last one doesn't count, can't have these things becoming routine now..."

I might check the randomness of the die. Honestly, if you crit nearly half the time because of one feat and a +1 magical ability, it does take from it.

Either it should require more feats, or more magical abilities - but I think the 18-20 threat range is too large anyway.

 

[ergeheilalt]

I might check the randomness of the die. Honestly, if you crit nearly half the time because of one feat and a +1 magical ability, it does take from it.

Either it should require more feats, or more magical abilities - but I think the 18-20 threat range is too large anyway.

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?

I always saw improved critical as a "mundane" effect. By learning where people are vulernable, where there are weak spots in armor, etc.; a character has discovered something, learned how to make their weapon more effective. Keen on the other hand, was a magic effect and made weapons more appt to critical on opponents, either sharpening the blade (ala slashing weapons), or making the blade slightly thinner, able to catch smaller spots (ala piercing weapons). These are two _very_ different effects.

You conplain about 18-20 being too great a threat range. Moot point, being that the only weapons who have that large a threat range are smaller weapons (1d6), versus the 19-20 longsword (1d8), or the plain old 20 battle axe (1d10). It's a trade off ... better damage over the long run or criticaling slightly more frequently with the smaller damage weapons.

Should the effects stack? Yes, according to the logic provided for stacking bonuses, Improved Critical is mundane and Keen is magic. Ranks in jump and a ring of jumping stack ... that makes logical sense; why the change for the weapons?

So much for the way gamers like it ...

Erge
Edit: bad spelling

 

[Kai Lord]

Actually Kai Lord, I do see your point, and in your game, it may not be a necessary change. I do feel that it is best for overall game balance in general however, due to the points I discussed above.

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.

By the way, the point about the evil NPCs is an absolutely valid one. However, I often get the feeling that evil (or actually opposing) NPCs are underutilized based on a lot of the comments I see on a routine basis.

I wonder why that is.