Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 357498" data-attributes="member: 1049">Only worry I have about this kind of thing is that it changes the balance of critical weapons, encouraging weapons with high threat ranges over ones with high critical multipliers.  Which seems to sidestep how they already put D&D together.For example, a 20/X2 weapon has a 5% chance of doing +100% damage, for a total of 105% base damage.  You already explained all that pretty well.  As it stands, for every extra point of critical range or critical multiplier, you gain an extra 5% base damage, so that a 20/X4 weapon and a 18-20/X2 weapon both do 115% base damage.  You already showed all this, of course.However, all alterations are multiplicative; a 19-20/X4 weapon and a 15-20/X2 weapon, again as you've shown, are the same.  But reversing that logic for critical multipliers would mean that an 18-20/X3 effective weapon would need to be counteracted by an effective 20/X7 weapon, and the existance of things like coup de graces makes that kind of critical multiplier doubling totally ludicrous.  But on the other hand, if you have two fighter-types, and knowing that fighter types will want to be as good with their chosen weapons as possible, then the one with the threat-range weapon will outclass the one with the critical multiplier one every time.  The greatsword will become effectively 140% damage, while the greataxe becomes 130% damage.  And if you want critical fans like the falchion vs the scythe, 160% damage vs. 140% damage looks even worse.  It just tilts the balance to favor threat ranges, which strikes me as being slightly ...off balance.</blockquote>

Verification