Should the keen quality even exist?

[comrade raoul]

One rant of Sean that I actually wholeheartedly agree with:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keen_medium.html

Keen is a very weak enhancement, actually. An energy damage (such as flaming) is much better. In fact, a simple straight +1 is better.

I disagree with Sean on math. It turns out that increases to threat range can be modeled as multiplying your weapon's base damage by an amount equal to 1 + ((the increase in the probability of a threat) * your multiplier)): for a scimitar or falchion, keen increase expected weapon damage by 15%.

This increase is better than the 3.5 points of expected damage from an energy enhancement only when your weapon damage is 24 or higher (since 24 * .15 = 3.6), which is generally possible only for high-level characters and probably mainly for two-handed weapons. So, keen scimitars and rapiers are almost never worthwhile, but keen is better than an energy enhancement on a +5 falchion used by a character with Greater Weapon Specialization and at least 24 Strength -- certainly possible at very high levels, but not before then.

 

[yennico]

Keen is a weak ability, every pc can use a keen weapon.
Improved critical costs a pc a feat and only fighters have many feats.

 

[RangerWickett]

Sean K Reynold's part 2 tablepalooza misses out on the possibility of power attacking, which might make a higher crit threat range better than that +1 avg damage a longsword gets. But then, rapiers aren't generally thought of as 'power' weapons, but rather finesse weapons.

He would have been better off comparing scimitars and longswords, since scimitars (like rapiers) are d6, 18-20/x2.


What the keen ability should be, I feel, is the ability for a weapon to automatically confirm its criticals. Or, perhaps instead, to make every attack that hits be a threat. You'd have to make two attack rolls for each attack, though, so it's not as fun.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

You'd have to make two attack rolls for each attack, though, so it's not as fun.

You end up having to do that with a keen rapier with improved critical, if they stack. The threat is so common that to speed up combat it makes sense to roll the confirmation die simultaneously.

It is my speculation that this is what WotC meant when they said it wasn't special and was too tedious, as reasons to ban the stack.

 

[RandomPrecision]

I understand that some people want to limit critical hits to make them feel special, but I don't think players who use rapiers for role-playing purposes should be penalized. The advantage that rapiers have is their high critcal threat range. While some people might find validity in the argument that a keen rapier makes critical hits too common, I have to respectfully argue that. If I were playing a rogue with two-weapon fighting, and I flanked an enemy, someone could argue that I was sneak attacking so much as to make it "not special", but I can't see why someone would say I should lose the ability to sneak attack because of that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've included the following house rule in my own campaigns:

The keen trait and the Improved Critical feat work as presented in the book if a character has only one or the other. If a character has both, however, he gains a +4 bonus to confirm critical hits. That way, while they still don't exactly stack, having both still provides some benefit.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

If I were playing a rogue with two-weapon fighting, and I flanked an enemy, someone could argue that I was sneak attacking so much as to make it "not special", but I can't see why someone would say I should lose the ability to sneak attack because of that.

I see what you're getting at but this in not an accurate comparison, the full attack with sneak attact is very situational and difficult to pull off, striking with a keen rapier is not.

No one wants to get the shaft, I am never in favour of ripping away a power without due compensation because imho balance is very important; however if some aspect of the game is indeed getting tedious it must be rectified before it impacts on the fun of the game.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

If a character has both, however, he gains a +4 bonus to confirm critical hits. That way, while they still don't exactly stack, having both still provides some benefit.

Nice.

I've been thinking about the confirmation roll and I reckon that it is confirmed on average about half the time. Primary attacks hit half the time until the mid levels+ when they begin to hit 2/3 to 3/4 of the time, but the bulk of attack rolls are the full iterative attacks and less of them hit & thus lower the % of successful confirmations.

Adding a +4 would increase confirmations to about 3/4, thereby increasing average damage by about 2.5%, and give a worthwhile synergy to the two without increasing the die rolls.

 

[Geoff Watson]

They are both rather weak.

Weapon focus is better than Improved Critical for most weapons, and a +1 enhancement bonus is better than Keen for nearly all weapons (where "better" means "more damage on average").

The only time they are worth taking is when you've got some other ability that applies on a critical.

Geoff.

 

[Rackhir]

I've included the following house rule in my own campaigns:

The keen trait and the Improved Critical feat work as presented in the book if a character has only one or the other. If a character has both, however, he gains a +4 bonus to confirm critical hits. That way, while they still don't exactly stack, having both still provides some benefit.

There is actually a feat from Complete Warrior iirc, Power Critical that does exactly this and I think has lower requirements than IC.