In the new 3.5 rules it says that the Improved Critical feat does not stack with the Keen effect, so does that mean a character with the IC feat and a keen longsword has a threat range of 17-20 instead of 15-20 like in the previous rules? It seems wrong that you can't combine the effects. I would think a character with the IC feat would know how to utilize a keen weapon better than someone without the feat, considering that he/she is trained in dealing criticals.
Keen/Improved Crit
- Thread starter Balord
- Start date
It appears that according to the rules, you are correct that someone with the improved critical: longsword feat using a keen longsword has a threat range of 17-20. I can rationalize why these effects do not stack, although I'm not certain I believe this logic:
Someone with the IC feat has the innate ability to know how to use the weapon to strike vital areas.
Through magic, a keen weapon has the innate ability to strike vital areas.
Since these two methods produce the same effect through the same means (striking vital areas,) these two effects do not stack. The critical areas do not become more vulnerable because someone with IC is wielding a keen weapon. Either you're proficient in striking the area (either through the feat or through magic,) or you're not.
Like I said though, I'm not particularly fond of that argument. Why shouldn't a character be able to become more proficient in striking critical spots? The reason the rule was changed from 3.0 (I'm assuming it was changed) is because the designers thought that having the effects stack was too powerful. I do not know if any designers provided any actual logic as to why they should not stack.
Someone with the IC feat has the innate ability to know how to use the weapon to strike vital areas.
Through magic, a keen weapon has the innate ability to strike vital areas.
Since these two methods produce the same effect through the same means (striking vital areas,) these two effects do not stack. The critical areas do not become more vulnerable because someone with IC is wielding a keen weapon. Either you're proficient in striking the area (either through the feat or through magic,) or you're not.
Like I said though, I'm not particularly fond of that argument. Why shouldn't a character be able to become more proficient in striking critical spots? The reason the rule was changed from 3.0 (I'm assuming it was changed) is because the designers thought that having the effects stack was too powerful. I do not know if any designers provided any actual logic as to why they should not stack.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what it means.
However, I emphatically agree with you that it is wrong. Just another 3.5 nerf. The bonus from Improved Critical is a skill based bonus. The bonus from the Keen quality is an enhancement bonus. They are two different types of bonuses and there is no good reason why they should not stack. A 9th level Fighter with Improved Critical and a longsword might have the same chances of a critical threat as a 5th level Fighter with a Keen longsword. But if you put that Keen longsword in the hands of that 9th level Fighter with Improved Critical, his chances of a critical threat should be even greater!
I just house rule it in my games that they stack. If you're the DM, just do the same. If you're not, talk to the DM and present your reasons for letting them stack (reminding him that prior to 3.5 they did stack and there's not been a valid reason since why they shouldn't) and maybe he'll go along with it.
noeuphoria
First Post
I think it had something to do with power-attacking barbarians wielding falchions that critted on a 12 or better. Or even better, wielding keen, vorpal falchions and basically beheading everything in sight. I know they fixed vorpal in 3.5, I would hazard a guess that they felt ever having a 45% chance to crit was too powerful.
The only official reason I have seen was that the head designer felt that crits werent 'special' enough.
Effectively he got to put his own ill thought out houserule into the game.
Personally, I have disallowed vorpal in every edition I have ever played, it has never been balanced in any incarnation (technically I did keep vorpal, but it was changed to increase the multiplier by 1, but since it is completely different it is effectively gone
).
Taking out well balanced and flavorful items for no good reason = bad.
Put it back in!
Effectively he got to put his own ill thought out houserule into the game.
Personally, I have disallowed vorpal in every edition I have ever played, it has never been balanced in any incarnation (technically I did keep vorpal, but it was changed to increase the multiplier by 1, but since it is completely different it is effectively gone
).Taking out well balanced and flavorful items for no good reason = bad.
Put it back in!
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
The Improved Critical Keen Two-handed Falchion was marginally too powerful in 3.0, but not enough so to bother fixing.
It would have been completely over-the-top with 3.5 Power Attack.
It would have been completely over-the-top with 3.5 Power Attack.
Thanee
First Post
Personally, I have no problem either way.
Improved Critical is still a very good feat, since it allows you to use a better weapon and still have that crit range on every weapon (of that type) you use.
And there are enough creatures immune to criticals, that super-crit-man won't always have that advantage.
So, while I don't really see enough reason to change this (back), I wouldn't mind if someone was opposed to the new rule and would prefer the old one. Works for me either way.
Bye
Thanee
Improved Critical is still a very good feat, since it allows you to use a better weapon and still have that crit range on every weapon (of that type) you use.
And there are enough creatures immune to criticals, that super-crit-man won't always have that advantage.
So, while I don't really see enough reason to change this (back), I wouldn't mind if someone was opposed to the new rule and would prefer the old one. Works for me either way.
Bye
Thanee
Sean Reynolds has an interesting rant on his site about this and argues that they should stack, with some number crunching to back his points up. He bases his argument on the overall average damage a weapon deals and the feats/gp needed for the weapon, not maximum damage possible. So yeah, your power-attacking, keen-falchion-wielding, improved-critical barbarian munchkin might deal out impressive damage from time to time, but he isn't necessarily doing as much on average as the fighter with the non-keen longsword or greatsword.
Ridley's Cohort said:
The numbers state otherwise through normal ranges
outside of those odd things do occur of course, but still.Ridley's Cohort said:
Nah
it is fine. (but then I would prefer 3.5 power attack to be 1:1.5 not 1:2, but apparently they are worried people cant do math.. which may be valid, but then how do people work str bonus?) The real problem is the frenzied guy, but then he is a problem all over.Remember, the more points dumped into power attack makes it harder to hit and harder to confirm.
No, the feat and the enchantment don't stack.
The whole "realism" notion's certainly highly subjective. After all, what is a "crit" exactly? What, any time I'm not critting, the blow is just a mere flesh wound--regardless of how much damage I do, or even if I kill the bugger?? Damage involves at least one die roll (for the weapon), and rolling maximum on that roll can just as easily be called a "critical" blow. And while one blow that does 50 points of damage to a dragon might be shrugged off, it may well be killed instantly by a blow that does only, say, 15 points of damage (as long as they're dragon's HP are low enough). Most decidedly, something that kills you instantly has harmed you critcally.
Ask yourself a more relevant question: what purpose are crticals supposed serve in the game--or more specifically, in your game)? If a critical is supposed to occasionally inject some random, unpredictable excitement into combat, then its seems reasonable to place some limitations on how much can be done to improve a weapon's chance of striking a critcial. If a critical is just another element for building a smackdown character, then don't bar that hold.
Perhaps, or maybe he'll pat you on the back and say "you know, there's a difference between a reason that's not valid and one you simply don't agree with".
The whole "realism" notion's certainly highly subjective. After all, what is a "crit" exactly? What, any time I'm not critting, the blow is just a mere flesh wound--regardless of how much damage I do, or even if I kill the bugger?? Damage involves at least one die roll (for the weapon), and rolling maximum on that roll can just as easily be called a "critical" blow. And while one blow that does 50 points of damage to a dragon might be shrugged off, it may well be killed instantly by a blow that does only, say, 15 points of damage (as long as they're dragon's HP are low enough). Most decidedly, something that kills you instantly has harmed you critcally.
Ask yourself a more relevant question: what purpose are crticals supposed serve in the game--or more specifically, in your game)? If a critical is supposed to occasionally inject some random, unpredictable excitement into combat, then its seems reasonable to place some limitations on how much can be done to improve a weapon's chance of striking a critcial. If a critical is just another element for building a smackdown character, then don't bar that hold.
Perhaps, or maybe he'll pat you on the back and say "you know, there's a difference between a reason that's not valid and one you simply don't agree with".
Last edited:
