Imp Crit + Keen = ???
- Thread starter Nifft
- Start date
comrade raoul
Explorer
My pet issue! The Reynolds link has been my .sig for months. My position (of course!) is that 3.0e stacking works just fine and Improved Critical should definitely stack with "keen" effects. As long as everything else that increases threat range is conceptually equivalent to, and so doesn't stack with, one or the other of those effects, threat ranges don't get out of hand.
People who still want very high threat ranges to be "special" might want to make Improved Critical a fighter-only feat. (You could make it require eight levels of fighter rather than BAB 8+, and push Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization back four levels apiece.) I do this, and think it works great. (It also gives people more incentive to be higher-level fighters!)
One thing to note with the existing responses is that a lot of solutions compromise weapon balance in unnecessarily problematic ways.
This is an interesting solution but has wonky implications for weapon balance. Since the additional damage provided by a constant increase to a multiplier depends on a weapon's threat range, weapons with high base threat ranges, like swords, get (dramatically) more benefit. Ceteris paribus a longsword at 17-20/x3 has a 20% chance to deal +200% damage (for +40% expected damage); a scimitar at 15-20/x3 has a 30% chance to deal +200% damage (for +60% (!) expected damage). This is actually more powerful than the standard stacking rules (15-20/x2 yields +30% expected damage; 12-20/x2 yields +45%); essentially, the second benefit is twice as powerful as the first. On the other hand, high-multiplier weapons do either just as well in the standard rules (as with base x3 weapons: a 19-20/x4 axe has a 10% chance to do +300% damage, just as good as the standard 18-20/x3 or 15% chance to do +200%) or slightly worse (as with base x4 weapons: a 19-20/x5 axe has a 10% chance to do +400% damage, or +40%, as opposed to 18-20/x4, which works out to +45% expected damage). So, someone should use your system if they want to give players a big incentive to use high-threat weapons like swords, and aren't concerned about potentially very deadly scimitar wielders.
People who still want very high threat ranges to be "special" might want to make Improved Critical a fighter-only feat. (You could make it require eight levels of fighter rather than BAB 8+, and push Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization back four levels apiece.) I do this, and think it works great. (It also gives people more incentive to be higher-level fighters!)
One thing to note with the existing responses is that a lot of solutions compromise weapon balance in unnecessarily problematic ways.
Yeah, but in IYC, don't you multiply damage differently than in the core rules? (Only base weapon damage and specialization bonuses, or something close to that, are multiplied?) That dramatically reduces the power of critical hits, so what might not be problematic in your campaign could still be an issue elsewhere. (My discussion will accordingly assume standard multiplication rules.)Nifft said:
This is an interesting solution but has wonky implications for weapon balance. Since the additional damage provided by a constant increase to a multiplier depends on a weapon's threat range, weapons with high base threat ranges, like swords, get (dramatically) more benefit. Ceteris paribus a longsword at 17-20/x3 has a 20% chance to deal +200% damage (for +40% expected damage); a scimitar at 15-20/x3 has a 30% chance to deal +200% damage (for +60% (!) expected damage). This is actually more powerful than the standard stacking rules (15-20/x2 yields +30% expected damage; 12-20/x2 yields +45%); essentially, the second benefit is twice as powerful as the first. On the other hand, high-multiplier weapons do either just as well in the standard rules (as with base x3 weapons: a 19-20/x4 axe has a 10% chance to do +300% damage, just as good as the standard 18-20/x3 or 15% chance to do +200%) or slightly worse (as with base x4 weapons: a 19-20/x5 axe has a 10% chance to do +400% damage, or +40%, as opposed to 18-20/x4, which works out to +45% expected damage). So, someone should use your system if they want to give players a big incentive to use high-threat weapons like swords, and aren't concerned about potentially very deadly scimitar wielders.
Probably too weak, unless Fortification came up an awful lot. Remember, normal stacking rules are probably balanced and yield considerable increases in expected damage whenever you're fighting something you can crit.Nifft said:
Too weak. Since this is a constant bonus, it has the largest effect for high-threat weapons, so let's take a 15-20/x2 scimitar. That's a 30% chance to deal an extra +3.5 damage, which works out to about +1 expected damage on things you can crit, and that's just for weapons that are optimized for it. Not good enough for a feat or a +1-equivalent ability, I'd think, though +2d6 or +2d8 (to be competitive for slightly lower-threat weaopns like longswords, too) extra damage on a crit, adjusted for a weapon's multiplier (so +4d8 for x3 weapons and +6d8 for x4 ones), might be.Nifft said:
Just like how a constant increase to a multiplier favors high-threat weapons, a constant increase to a threat range favors high-multiplier weapons. The 3.0e doubling rules give axes and scythe a +1 to crit anyway, so this rule is equivalent for them. But swords are much worse off: a 16-20/x2 longsword deals just +25% expected damage from crits (as opposed to +30% in 3.0e and +30% for an 18-20/x3 axe), and a 14-20/x2 scimitar deals just +35%, as opposed to +45% in 3.0e and +45% for an 18-20/x4 scythe. Nerfing swords like this seems arbitrary and unfair, though I guess you might want to do this if you think swords are lame and overused and you want all your players to use axes instead. But this seems heavyhanded, and I'd recommend against it.S'mon said:
I'm with wuyanei on this. Epic rules shouldn't be used as part of balance judgments, since balance in epic play is really bizarre if it exists at all, and epic rules are irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of most games.Baronovan said:
Last edited:
Aust Diamondew
First Post
I use the 3.0 rule. Since they fixed vorpal weapons it's no longer an issue.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
SKRs analysis is ridiculous, he compares a keen rapier to a holy greatsword when he wholey knows that given the alignment spread of monsters, holy is too good. Afaic the presentation of greatsword vs rapier + holy vs keen = a strawman's argument.
As for the topic at hand, put the successfully criticalled foe at -2 to Atts/Dam/AC/Saves/Skills for the following round due to pain.
As for the topic at hand, put the successfully criticalled foe at -2 to Atts/Dam/AC/Saves/Skills for the following round due to pain.
In my high level game one of the two Fighter PCs used a spear, because it was a powerful artifact. The other used a bastard sword, because he started in 3.0 
In my low-level game the first Fighter PC used a halberd, so he could Trip & set vs charge. The second Fighter uses longsword & shield and concentrates on defense. Crit multiples have never been a factor. Generally players prefer 19-20/x2 to 20/x3 as with 19-20/x2 you are more likely to crit, & less likely to waste damage on overkill when you do crit. FWIW I'd say 17-20/x2 is a lot better than 19-20/x3 (keen or imp crit) and 16-20/x2 is still better than 18-20/x3 (keen + imp crit).
In my low-level game the first Fighter PC used a halberd, so he could Trip & set vs charge. The second Fighter uses longsword & shield and concentrates on defense. Crit multiples have never been a factor. Generally players prefer 19-20/x2 to 20/x3 as with 19-20/x2 you are more likely to crit, & less likely to waste damage on overkill when you do crit. FWIW I'd say 17-20/x2 is a lot better than 19-20/x3 (keen or imp crit) and 16-20/x2 is still better than 18-20/x3 (keen + imp crit).
Similar Threads
