So a Keen Rapier Crits on....

[Infiniti2000]

I'm still not following this logic. The word "event" now means rare?

Only because you choose not to. The word "event" can mean "A significant occurrence or happening." It's perfectly logical to conclude that if something happens so frequently, it is no longer significant.

I'm just not seeing where the word "critical" in critical hit necessarily mandates "rare".

I'm not seeing where you come up with the idea that anyone's mandating anything. What exactly is your purpose in bringing this up? Are you looking for some clarification or perhaps to avoid confusion for other people?

 

[Storm Raven]

Only because you choose not to. The word "event" can mean "A significant occurrence or happening." It's perfectly logical to conclude that if something happens so frequently, it is no longer significant.

"Significant" does not mean rare. Of course, the primary definition of "event" is "something that takes place". Except for the one you selected (which doesn't really translate into "rare" except under a tortured reading of "significant", which is in no way even implied by the definition of that word) none of the definitions of the word "event" have any implication of rarity.

I'm not seeing where you come up with the idea that anyone's mandating anything. What exactly is your purpose in bringing this up? Are you looking for some clarification or perhaps to avoid confusion for other people?

It has been theorized that the word "critical" in critical hit denotes rarity. And that having large critical threat ranges are thus contrary to the meaning of "critical hit". That is hogwash. Critical in no way means "rare". It means critical, nothing more.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It has been theorized that the word "critical" in critical hit denotes rarity. And that having large critical threat ranges are thus contrary to the meaning of "critical hit". That is hogwash. Critical in no way means "rare". It means critical, nothing more.

Is 5% as the default crit not considered rare? I think it does since that's the minimum percentage. Your tortured reading has you substituting game terms and English words interchangeably as it suits you. A "crit" in D&D/d20 means much more than in general English. So, yes, "critical" means critical (really an astute observation), but only if you mean the D&D term, which as a default implies rarity.

 

[Storm Raven]

Is 5% as the default crit not considered rare? I think it does since that's the minimum percentage. Your tortured reading has you substituting game terms and English words interchangeably as it suits you. A "crit" in D&D/d20 means much more than in general English. So, yes, "critical" means critical (really an astute observation), but only if you mean the D&D term, which as a default implies rarity.

No, it doesn't. It means an effective strike. It does not necessarily mean a rare strike. Yes, the default is 20, but many weapons have larger threat ranges, and there are many ways to increase those threat ranges. As a result, your theory that 'critical" means "rare" in D&D is complete hogwash. None of the words you have trotted out to show that "critical" means "rare" (i.e. "critical", "event", and "significant") have definitions even in the ballpark or the meaning you ascribe to them. Saying the "default is 5%" is just not meaningful. The default for humans is a 1st level commoner with Str 10, Int 11, Wis, 10, Dex 111, Con 10, Cha 11 or something similar. Are you now going to argue that having characters whose abilities depart from this is bad too?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Really? Is there something in the definition of the word "critical" that mandates rarity?

Why are you picking on the word "critical" when my critique was centred on the concept of the "critical hit". You are ignoring the context of the concept & instead zooming in a component word, isolating it & then placing emphasis on it within a separate context. Nevermind that the word critical has a dozen different meanings to boot. I call that a double rationalization & it is a poor mans attack in that it seems to want to lure me into defending some peripheral strawman.

Instead let's cut the nonsense & talk about the pros/cons of commonly occurring criticals, because that is the real issue you'r trying to take me to task on.

 

[Storm Raven]

Why are you picking on the word "critical" when my critique was centred on the concept of the "critical hit". You are ignoring the context of the concept & instead zooming in a component word, isolating it & then placing emphasis on it within a separate context. Nevermind that the word critical has a dozen different meanings to boot. I call that a double rationalization & it is a poor mans attack in that it seems to want to lure me into defending some peripheral strawman.

Expanding the question to the phrase "critical hit" doesn't help your case much. There isn't anything inherent in the term "critical hit" that implies rarity, or really anything other than a particularly well-placed or damaging attack.

Instead let's cut the nonsense & talk about the pros/cons of commonly occurring criticals, because that is the real issue you'r trying to take me to task on.

Do you truly find it a problem that highly skilled combatants, with a minimum of a +8 BAB, and either a feat or a weapon that costs more than five suits of full plate armor (or as is commonly house ruled, both) would be particularly good at scoring more damaging strikes on a regular basis as opposed to a lesser and not as specialized combatant? Exactly why would it be a problem to have such a highly specialized character around, especially since it doesn't seem to cause any actual game balance issues.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I won't discuss the word "critical" any further for stated reason.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of the critical hit, & it is perfectly acceptable that there is a mechanism to further improve it. What I have a problem with is this concept that it is good game design to allow improving the improvement within the cramped limitation of the d20 to hit roll. 'Balance' while a central consideration, is not the only consideration in good game design.

I have never had a problem with the keen/imp crit stack for balance reasons because even the worst case scenario, the falchion, has such a heavy amount of delayed gratification built into it that I do not consider it in the 'must pick' category.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Saying the "default is 5%" is just not meaningful.

It is absolutely meaningful when the definition uses it. Ignoring it is ignoring the definition.

The default for humans is a 1st level commoner with Str 10, Int 11, Wis, 10, Dex 111, Con 10, Cha 11 or something similar. Are you now going to argue that having characters whose abilities depart from this is bad too?

No. Having a character that departs from a Dex of 111 is a good thing, but only if lower. Much lower. In any case, why are you now using the word 'bad'? That's a loaded word. I don't believe I said 'bad' previously or even remotely alluded to it.

I still fail to see where you are going with this line of argumentation. Is it worthwhile to challenge FreeTheSlaves's opinion of criticals being rare? Or, are you just spoiling for a fight?

Do you truly find it a problem that highly skilled combatants, with a minimum of a +8 BAB, and either a feat or a weapon that costs more than five suits of full plate armor (or as is commonly house ruled, both) would be particularly good at scoring more damaging strikes on a regular basis as opposed to a lesser and not as specialized combatant? Exactly why would it be a problem to have such a highly specialized character around, especially since it doesn't seem to cause any actual game balance issues.

This shows a lack of understanding of FreeTheSlaves's point. You got so intwined in picking apart 'critical' and its unsaid 'rarity' that you didn't even read his post correctly. Perhaps he didn't express himself entirely clearly, but really, whoever does?

 

[argo]

Instead let's cut the nonsense & talk about the pros/cons of commonly occurring criticals

Fair enough. So now we're back to the "keen+improved crit stacking is bad because it makes crits not-special" argument.

This one really is more of a matter of personal taste. Personally I attach little/no emotional value to the "specialness" of crits. I view them simply as a blow that strikes at a more vulneurable area much the same as Sneak Attack (and to the extent allowed by dnd's abstract hit points; just what is does a 20 point crit do to a Barb with 100 hp?). As such it seems perfectly logical to me that if a high-level warrior is looking for ways to improve his killing ability that he may choose to focus on learning to concentrate his blows on vital spots. In that contex I have no problem with commonly occuring crits.

The real clincher for me is that I don't see how letting the fighter have his 12-20 threat range makes crits "less special" for everyone else. Soon crits will just be a standard part of the fighter's average damage output its true but the barbarian is still walking around with a 20/x3 on his greataxe. For him crits are still rare and when he does land one, while raging and going full PA, I guarantee it will seem special at that moment. Will the barbarian really look at his 75+ points-of-damage-crit and shrug and say "yeah but the fighter crits so often ..."

So why exactly does a fighter with a 12-20 threat range ruin the barbarian's fun?

Later.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

One of the strengths of d&d combat is that there are so many facets of it that model cinematic aspects while the holistic system does not bog down in detail.

The critical hit serves a function that draws the players attention to a significant event in combat that can alter tactics. E.g. the BBEG crits with a *3 weapon on the fighter drawing gasps & so the cleric & fighter then plan their actions to rendezvous to redress the situation, etc... Of course without augmentations, this is pretty rare occurrance & with augmentations it still is a minority except for the 15+ scimitar/rapier/falchion. At 15+ the falchion fighter probably threatens on a hit about 40% of the time because at around the mid-levels onward the primary fighter's BAB start to out-strip the average AC as the secondary attack grows in importance, i.e. the primary BAB fighting type starts to hit on numbers lower then 11. Regardless, the 15+ critical has become fairly common, common enough I think to represent the crit skilled archetype. With 2 attacks there is already a better than even odds that they are at least going to threaten a crit, so already they player's character is drawing the crowds attention.

Admittedly this is all academic because I never experienced it in my games, but the 12+ crit has some fairly obvious effects. The majority of successful hits occur in the upper range of the d20, if we bring the 3/4 BAB classes into the equation. We've got such characters pretty consistantly generating critical threats & hits so much so that the words 'critical hit' is becoming common. But we've still got the *3 (the 19+/*2 weapons are not so important) generating criticals which are of greater significance to the tactical situation as they suddenly dump a whack load of damage.

Without going further in this examination I see 2 problems here. The 12+ crit is occurring with such regularity that there is a case building which is strong enough in my opinion, for it to be replaced with a flat bonus. The criticals are beginning to occur more often than the standard hit, which perversely is then beginning to be the focus that influences combat: i.e. "drat guys, I only did a standard hit on this enemy..." The base description of our crit expert has become one of constant sharp attacks & where the successful standard attack is against the norm. It is a classic case of untrammelled satiation where the lack of limitation distorts perspective, 'to hit' is supposed to be 'to succeed'. The second problem is merely a hinderence to communication, that of the significant *3 event being lost in the chorus of critical hits.

****

As an afterthought Argo, I pose you with this question. Would you object to a 3rd or 4th critical augmentation that could potentially improve the threat range to 9+ or 6+ respectively? If you would object, on what grounds would you justify it?