Imp Crit + Keen = ???

[Emperor Valerian]

Here's how I look at it:

When I played a fighter character in 3.0, I liked the stacking of Improved Crit and Keen.

When my players play fighters, I know they like that stacking.

So I allow it. Plain and simple.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Which is why if you followed the link he has also demonstrated it mathimatically with a keen longsword verse a keen rapier.

Demonstrated what? I've seen the link but I am not sure what it is trying to prove. Improved critical & keen can be applied to both weapons so to say that the rapier needs the quality to stay level with the longsword is not true because the longsword will merely be improved as well.

The longswords possible str*1.5 can be cancelled out by the rapiers special finessable property - and if we bring in the scimitar instead, it can receive the str*1.5 as well.

I have not been presented with credible reason to suggest improved critical & keen need to stack.

 

[RandomPrecision]

Demonstrated what? I've seen the link but I am not sure what it is trying to prove. Improved critical & keen can be applied to both weapons so to say that the rapier needs the quality to stay level with the longsword is not true because the longsword will merely be improved as well.

The longswords possible str*1.5 can be cancelled out by the rapiers special finessable property - and if we bring in the scimitar instead, it can receive the str*1.5 as well.

I have not been presented with credible reason to suggest improved critical & keen need to stack.

The link shows that a rapier with Imp. Crit. and Keen isn't overpowered. You've said that this isn't why WotC changed the rules - you said it was to preserve fun. However, that's rather subjective. I think it would still be 'fun' to have a higher critical threat range, and I would allow the stacking. If fun is the only issue at hand, and most people find stacking critical modifiers more fun than one of their modifiers being negated by WotC, how can you present reason that they shouldn't stack?

 

[Goolpsy]

Well the math and examples has been shown, any1 want to keep the 3.5 rules.. fine. People keepnig the 3.0 rules.. fine. People uncertain if it was balanced, got the answer is now free to make up their own oppinion. No need for more *useless* post about the "im not satisfyed" cause it did get proved.

Btw, SKReynolds didn't compare rapier by great sword.. he wanted the same item 'class' so he took rapier vs longsword, and changed it so falchion vs greatsword.
Another thing it does show is, that the damage dice and increased threat range is nearly fairly balanced out as long you aren't playing a god with 50 strenght...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

...However, that's rather subjective... ...how can you present reason that they shouldn't stack?

Well that is what WotC said and while I can't reference the quote I'm sure others here have heard (& debated) it. I guess the reason presented is pretty much the 'too much cake will spoil you' one, but like I said I've never had problems of this kind as my friends are rather hopeless powergamers.

The real test is probably when everyone notices that new fighting-type characters introduced to a higher level campaign all have improved critical and it feels so mundane. I have heard the 'more dice rolls bogs down high level combat' argument but while I would agree, I feel it is more an issue with high level combat rather than one specific source.

Just to clarify I, like most here at ENWorld, don't care a whit about others houserules. What I do care about is presenting as close to correctness as possible, the possible implications so that decisions are informed.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Another thing it does show is, that the damage dice and increased threat range is nearly fairly balanced out as long you aren't playing a god with 50 strenght...

Yeah, I got that out of his article and this harks back to the problem as Monte Cook saw it of weapons simply not having enough room for variance. You can play with the price, class, weight, damage die, crit threat, modifier, reach & special properties, but if you stray too far from the baseline the weapon become either an auto-choice or never touched.

Moving from 1d8crit20*3 to 1d8crit19+*2 to 1d6crit18+*2, you will get different optimal variances depending on the AC faced & bonus damage dealt. The numbers will be different & I think it is fair to say that given how the D&D combat system operates, a generally optimal weapon for a situation will emerge. In the case of the 1d8 single hand weapons it is probably the longsword.

Is it bad for one weapon to be better than the others of its kind?

 

[Felix]

They only balance out vs an infinite hit points opponent. Vs a typical oppent the 20/x3 weapon is far more likely to waste lots of hp damage on overkill.

That overkill also provides the DM with a fairly good reason to change the momentum of the battle. If a fighter deals 50 points of damage to a 40hp orc in one blow, you can imagine how the other orcs would be less enthusiastic about engaging that character in melee, or even continuing the fight.

Point being that there are many considerations that must be taken into account when you limit the hp of the enemy... it's simpler to have an opponent with infinite hp. Yes, you'll have wasted damage on enemies with high crit multipliers. You'll have a lower damage potential with a high crit range when you only have one attack that round. Give and take. But a far cry from "It's Broken!

 

[S'mon]

I have no real problem with stacking crit range in 3.5 BTW. Maybe it makes Falchions a bit too good, *shrug*.

 

[Goolpsy]

No the falchion wont get too strong, unless.. (as noted above, and explained in the articles.. ) You have Godly strenght...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Andy Collins removed the stacking in 3.5e because he thought it was 'too tedious'

See this thread for an example of his comments on the subject

http://p198.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm12.showMessage?topicID=360.topic

Personally I think this is a feeble reason for disallowing the stacking, and so allow it to continue.