Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8825801" data-attributes="member: 6877472">As far as that goes, however, the Champion really doesn't get a lot out of their expanded crit range. It's not like they get tons of bonus damage when they crit, like some other classes do.  You're talking what, an extra 6.5 damage from a greataxe crit?Oh sure, there's Half-Orcs (Orcs, now?), but the way I see it, the extra 6.5 damage on the critical hit just makes that a superior race for Champions?Anyways, I don't think "but think of the Champion!" is a good reason to worry about expanded crit ranges in of itself- but thinking about how Paladins and Rogues might benefit from an expanded crit range is.  If we're talking about having a higher chance to crit with a light weapon, that's not particularly bothersome.  Oh no, you get an extra d4 or d6 damage!But Elevating Halfling to top-tier for crit fishing Paladins (which, btw, I despise.  If you're going to be a Smite machine, Smite on all your attacks, don't wait around until you luck out and roll a 20, jeez) and basically almost all Rogues might be a better reason to worry.  Not that I think a 10% better chance for bonus damage is a big deal.  It's not even a full 10% damage per attack increase.The crux will be how D&D One would change critical hits.  If Rogues are still permitted to double all their Sneak Attack dice (and ditto for Paladins), then sure, maybe it's a problem.There are a few other classes that get a bonus die of damage here and there, like Warlocks or Rangers, but it's really not worth worrying about, IMO.  Personally, I'm not even sure why WotC is so stingy with critical range expansion; this reminds me of the 3.5 devs kiboshing the 11-20 crit range with a Rapier, not because doubling the d6 plus mods was problematic, but simply because "crits should be special, this makes them feel less special".Thing is though, if your critical hit can manage to deal less damage than a regular hit, that doesn't feel all that special to me.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On Halflings and throwing things:  Yes, this is part of Halfling lore, but so are Halfling infantry and archers.  Here's some quotes from the Professor himself.To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the King, or so they maintained, though no tales of men record it.– The Fellowship of the Ring, Prologue: ‘Concerning Hobbits’...apart from many younger lads, more than a hundred sturdy Hobbits were assembled with axes, and heavy hammers, and long knives, and stout staves; and a few had hunting bows.– The Return of the King – ‘The Scouring of the Shire’, Chapter VIIISo here we see that Halflings use a fairly large assortment of weapons in times of war, not just light weapons, or those that can be thrown.  Yet D&D chose to focus on throwing rocks and using slings- not that I'd mind Halfling slingers, since in real life, the sling was an effective weapon of war, but D&D, as I've mentioned before, seems to think the sling is a fairly pathetic weapon.Also, curiously, it turns out there's a reason the Shire is relatively peaceful.  Only twice in history did war ever come to the Shire, and both times, the Halflings booted the invaders out.  The Battle of Bywater, during the Scouring of the Shire, and the Battle of Greenfields in 1147, when a band of Orcs moved too far west and entered the Shire.  The Thain at that time, Bandobras "Bullroarer" Took was an exceptional military leader, who lore tells us could ride a pony, and decapitated the Orc leader.  I find it a remarkable fact that, although Tolkien tells us halflings were not warlike and did not have particular skill in arms, they managed to overthrow a band of orcs – who were significantly larger and more efficient in combat!</blockquote>

Verification