Imp Crit + Keen = ???

[FreeTheSlaves]

Well, the Tedious part isn't a part to get fixed, its a Flavor part that COULD get fixed, i.e. by making one of them improving the Crit multiplyer instead.

Totally agree - everyone would be happy doing that, except the few obsessed with having a "12+" pencilled on their character sheet, oh and the "it's too overpowered" crowd. In both cases these people demand to be overridden and ignored.

WotC make design decisions on some sort of consensus basis, not just Andy Collins because he wasn't able to get sorcerers the use magic device charisma-based skill. I think what may have vetoed the 'improve the multiplier' concept was that the revision was not to introduce any non-essential changes especially without precedence (I may have this wrong). It may have been on the cards but we know that a lot of stuff didn't make the cut.

Building on the tedium concern, I would be prepared to sacrifice a lot more minutiae to get higher level combat running smoother; stat blocks are a great place to start and I would want to see characters with smaller # of options that upgrade to replace & not incrementally accumulate - none of this host of low level powers that collect with level like unsable junk. It is not just the excessive rolling that can get tedious, it is the rampant proliferation of additional calculations hidden in a clogged character sheet.

 

[DungeonMaster]

Yeah Andy Collins is only the senior game designer of the worlds most popular RPG. Our unrealized, potential genius, game designing talents clearly blow his tangible success out of the water.

Similar could be said of dictators in matters of Iraqi politics or the heads of WorldCom and Enron or any other field where promotion is not based either on merit or competence. Sorry to disallusion you from your bubble.

If I'm going to put my faith in someones rule-set, I'll choose the proven winner everytime.

Then go run with "no keen improved crit stacking" while the rest of the gaming community labels it moronic. You can even buy into Andy's simian logic of a time gain. See if I care.

Banshee:
Munchkin appeared in march 2003.
3.5 PhB in July 2003. Agreed precedence in one campaign setting of a bonus to strength to carrying - but this is wholesale lift.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Replying to you DungeonMaster is merely going to perpetuate some petty feud that has little bearing on the topic of this thread, count me out.

 

[apesamongus]

The tedium would kick in, if it ever was going to, when most successful hits require a confirmation roll.

The improved critical feat is used by higher level characters with iterative attacks - you are increasing the number of rolls they make by aproximately 50% in the worse case scenario. I can't so easily dismiss the "tedious" accusation as higher level combat begins to really bog down sometimes.

#1 then you roll both dice at once, as any sensible player should be doing anyway.
#2 slow high level combat has nothing to do with an extra die roll or two, and everything to do with increased options for players.
#3 If extra rolls made such a big difference for "tedium" at high levels, then they would have "fixed" the mechanics of fortification, concealment miss chance, and SR - which happen just as much at high levels as threatening crits and also require extra die rolls.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

#1 then you roll both dice at once, as any sensible player should be doing anyway.
#2 slow high level combat has nothing to do with an extra die roll or two, and everything to do with increased options for players.
#3 If extra rolls made such a big difference for "tedium" at high levels, then they would have "fixed" the mechanics of fortification, concealment miss chance, and SR - which happen just as much at high levels as threatening crits and also require extra die rolls.

#1 Of course, who wouldn't?
#2 Nothing? You use that word too readily I think, especially a die roll that can occur after every individual attack, every round, every combat.
#3 None of what you listed occur anywhere as frequently as a fighters to hit roll because they are all defensive in nature.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

2 examples:

Fighter 16 non stack rolls
(1d20 to hit & 1d6 for damage)*4, then rolls to confirm the likely lone critical

Vs

Fighter 16 stack rolls
(1d20 to hit & 1d20 to confirm & 1d6 for damage)*4

The difference is likely a 5 minute round vs an 8 minute round. Given that WotC has to ensure that their game is fun before any other concern, and if my time guesstimate is near the truth, it points to WotC stopping the stack because they believe that time spent waiting for turn resolution is not fun. I can respect this logic but I am also leaning towards having improved critical improve the crit multiplier.

 

[Storyteller01]

Maybe it's just me (and I'm not looking to make an edition war, I can see that ion the horizon as it is ), but it seems that the 3.5 changes were a mismesh of offering ideas.

Weapon sizes were expanded for greater detail and emmersion, but cover rules were simplified (overly so, in my opinion).

Improved crit and keen do not stack, but a character with Power Attack can double their feat advantage by using a 2 hnd weapon.

Haste was reduced in power, then Quill Blast was introduced.

Maybe it's a case of too many chefs in the kitchen?

 

[Vurt]

The difference is likely a 5 minute round vs an 8 minute round. Given that WotC has to ensure that their game is fun before any other concern, and if my time guesstimate is near the truth, it points to WotC stopping the stack because they believe that time spent waiting for turn resolution is not fun. I can respect this logic but I am also leaning towards having improved critical improve the crit multiplier.

While statistically the same over long runs as the 3e stacking rules, as someone already mentioned, improving the crit multiplier will give more variance for individual crits. Which means more damage. Combat gets even more deadlier, and throwing in things like power attack, smite, etc., will result in many more one-hit kills.

Of course, depending on your play-style, this may be a feature and not a bug. Personally, I'm keen on trying it out myself.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[DungeonMaster]

Fighter 16 non stack rolls
(1d20 to hit & 1d6 for damage)*4, then rolls to confirm the likely lone critical

Fighter 16 stack rolls
(1d20 to hit & 1d20 to confirm & 1d6 for damage)*4

That's hilarious. Almost perfect "Andy logic". Did it ever occur to you while writing this that in the non-stack case you can still critically hit ? In other words you should still be rolling another d20 ?
The only difference is the number you compare your critical hit to.
And rolling lord forbid a few more damage dice.

The difference is likely a 5 minute round vs an 8 minute round.

LOL. No, not even close. It's a completely negligeable difference if your players have intelligences above the average eggplant.

 

[apesamongus]

While statistically the same over long runs as the 3e stacking rules, as someone already mentioned, improving the crit multiplier will give more variance for individual crits. Which means more damage. Combat gets even more deadlier, and throwing in things like power attack, smite, etc., will result in many more one-hit kills.

Of course, depending on your play-style, this may be a feature and not a bug. Personally, I'm keen on trying it out myself.

This is similar to what I'm thinking. The difference between high range/low multiplier and low range/high multiplier weapons is one of consistency. Higher range weapons crit more and it's less meaningful when they do. High multiplier weapons crit less and it matters more. The desire to have a 12-20/X2 crit as opposed to a 15-20/X3 isn't simply one of wanting certain numbers written on your character sheet, it's about wanting to have a weapon that turns out reliable (albeit slightly lower) damage vs one that get's gusts of higher damage. It's a trade-off and a question of player style. Essentially, you are trading higher predictability for being slightly weaker overall.