D&D 3E/3.5 Spell/Rule Changes from 3.0 to 3.5 -- How did we survive 3.0?

[two]

They represent fully half of the feats availabale to a straight fighter of that level. If half of your class abilities isn't a significant investment in your book, then you just aren't thinking things through.

If you already have them, requiring them isn't a liability. Many fighter builds use these feats. Not all. If yours don't, perhaps don't use Improved Critical + Keen.

And mandatory? Hardly. I've seen a couple dozen fighter characters built in the last year, and only two of them had Power Attack, and only a few more than that had Weapon Focus. Perhaps you've noticed all of the other feat choices out there: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, and so on and so forth. Tying yourself to a single weapon, or tying yourself to a single combat style is often foolish.

Many fighter builds use these feats. Not all. If yours don't, perhaps don't use Improved Critical + Keen. The infamous "Gnomish shuriken master," for example, would be a bad match for Improved Critical + Keen shurikens.

Increase their Constitution. Increase their Dexterity. You know, those abilities that help keep you from getting hit, or getting killed.

Many fighter builds tend to increase their strength by 2 or 4 by 8th level. Not all, and this doesn't stop them from also increasing con or dex. If yours don't, perhaps don't use Improved Critical + Keen. The infamous "Gnomish shuriken master," for example, would be a bad match for Improved Critical + Keen shurikens + high strength.

Only in the bizarro universe where all fighters are built the same, and all fighters eschew the dozens of other options out there, many of which are more useful in combat.

If you already have them, requiring these feats isn't a liability. Many fighter builds use these feats. Not all. If yours don't, perhaps don't use Improved Critical + Keen.

And was worse at it than the fighter, since he could only rage a limited number of times per day, and was brittle as an eggshell due to the incredible ease with which his opponents were able to hit him. A great way to get your character killed, quickly.

Killing your opponent before they kill you can be seen as the ultimate defensive tactic.

Basically, your examples make no sense, and assume a bizarre and unseen similarity in fighter builds. Further, even if you assume that all fighters are built this way, then you are basically saying that half of a character's class abilities shouldn't result in their being able to do significant damage to their foes, which is a ridiculous position to take.

Thanks for your input. We are, after all, discussing the "Improved Critical" feat, which is tied to a weapon, which implies the fighter in question might, well, be "focussing" or "specializing" in a weapon.

I'm not saying that the spiked chain fighter should get this feat, or will have power attack. Nor the disarm-master, or the high-dex fighter type. I'm saying that a fighter that selects "Improved Critical" is more than likely to, well, have feats that, well, help him hit and hurt using a specific weapon.

It's really not much of a stretch.

Or am I being repetitious?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I smell an opportunity to crunch some numbers!

Even better!

Do it as a graph against AC.

We'll assume both fighters - Joe Falchion and Bob Greatsword - are the same level. In this case, they'll be 8th, the minimum to qualify for Improved Critical. I've also given them both Weapon Focus. Why not? They're specialized 8th-level Fighters; they've got the feats to burn.

http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott...cleavepct=&2circlekickpct=&report=on&maxac=40

Basically, against low-AC foes (at 8th-level, those targets with less than 22 AC), the Falchion wielder wins, but not by much.

Against higher-AC foes, the Greatsword wielder wins.

So, these feats are hardly what I would call unbalanced - as Sean Reynolds spent a great deal of time pointing out.

EDIT, To Add:

You might want to instead use *this* link.

http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott...cleavepct=&2circlekickpct=&report=on&maxac=40

I'd forgotten that NWN multiplies most damage on a critical hit - in this case, it multiplied the 1d6 Fire damage from the flaming enhancement. I corrected that by subtracting 3.5 damage from a greatsword's damage on a critical hit.

This has the effect of making the falchion a slightly bigger winner against extemely low AC opponents - as in, ACs between 10 and 18 (or, opponent's you'll only miss by rolling a one) and shifts the crossover point to AC 24 - which in either case is only missed on a roll of 8 or less for a primary attack.

For opponents in the "normal" threat range - as in, things your primary fighter will need to roll well against in order to hit - the greatsword still comes out ahead.

 

[Storm Raven]

A +2 to AC, basically giving +10% to hit, makes you as brittle as an eggshell?

Yep. The problem in higher level combat isn't whether you will be hit by your opponent's primary attack, you probably will be. It is whether you will be hit by his secondary (and possibly tertiary) attacks as well. That -2 to Ac is a big deal on those attacks, since it dramatically increases his effective chance of hitting you.

They might get a little more often, but that 1d12 hit die more than makes up for it.

An average of 1 hit point per level more than a fighter of similar level. Or, in the example of an 8th level character 8 hit points. A factor easily overwhelmed by the increased damage.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm afraid your numbers are wrong.

Given these facts:

• Bob the fighter
• Str 20,
• Imp. Crit.
• Keen stacks with Improved Crit (3.0e)
• weapon specialization

.....let's see how it goes. I'll assume a probability to hit of 50%.:

Of course, the silliness in your example is assuming a probability to hit of 50%.

Let's try some target ACs and realistic damage output for a pair of 8th level fighters equipped as shown. His attacks are at +16/+11 (+8 BAB, +2 magic, +1 focus, +5 Strength).

+2 flaming greatsword (7 base damage, +2 specialization, +7 Strength, +2 magic)(+3.5 fire not multiplied on a critical):

AC 10 First Attack (95%): 22.99, Second Attack (95%) 22.99 - Total 45.98
AC 15 First Attack (95%): 22.99, Second Attack (85%) 20.57 - Total 43.56
AC 20 First Attack (85%): 20.57, Second Attack (60%) 14.52 - Total 35.09
AC 25 First Attack (60%): 14.52, Second Attack (25%) 6.05 - Total 20.57

Next, let's look at the +2 keen falchion (5 base damage, +2 specialization, +7 Strength, +2 magic):

AC 10 First Attack (95%): 21.28, Second Attack (95%) 21.28 - Total 42.56
AC 15 First Attack (95%): 21.28, Second Attack (85%) 19.04 - Total 40.32
AC 20 First Attack (85%): 19.04, Second Attack (60%) 13.44 - Total 40.32
AC 25 First Attack (60%): 13.44, Second Attack (25%) 5.00 - Total 18.44

For simplicity, I didn't try to downgrade the expected damage for creatures immune to fire (or upgrade for creatures susceptible to fire), or for creatures immune to or resistant to critical hits. The following formula was used:

((% probability to hit)*(base damage + bonuses)) + ((% critical)*(%probability to hit)*(base damage + bonuses))

At no point does the expected damage of the falchion wielder exceed the expected damage of the greatsword wielder, even with Keen and Improved Critical stacking. In point of fact, the falchion wielder in the example would have to obtain roughly an additional +1.5 base bonus to damage (without affecting his chance to hit) in order to draw even in average damage output with the greatsword wielder as presented. Actually, at AC 25 and above, the increased base bonus damage needs to increase to roughly +2.5 over and above the greatsword wielder to draw even.

So, exactly where is the problem again?

 

[Quasqueton]

Are those 3 changes worth $120 for new books?

Man, you got screwed. I paid only $30 for my PHB---and that was full retail.

Quasqueton

 

[Storm Raven]

If you already have them, requiring them isn't a liability.

Umm, you seem not to understand the concept of opportunity cost. Every feat you take means that you cannot use that slot to take a different feat. Assuming that fighters will take thes efeats ignores the fact that it costs them slots to do so, a real cost. The fact that you always seem to take them doesn't mean that it is something that you get "for free".

Thanks for your input. We are, after all, discussing the "Improved Critical" feat, which is tied to a weapon, which implies the fighter in question might, well, be "focussing" or "specializing" in a weapon.

No it doesn't. One can take the Improved Critical feat without specializing or focusing. It requires two less feats to do so, which most people other than you seem to realize is a fairly big deal.

Basically, your argument makes no sense, because you don't understand the term "cost".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course, the silliness in your example is assuming a probability to hit of 50%.

Let's try some target ACs and realistic damage output for a pair of 8th level fighters equipped as shown.

Or, ya know, you could use the chart I provided...

http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott...cleavepct=&2circlekickpct=&report=on&maxac=40

 

[Nail]

Of course, the silliness in your example is assuming a probability to hit of 50%.

An AC of 27 is silly? Can I play in your game?

You numbers and mine are slightly different....I'm sure we could work out why, but this isn't the thread for that. In any case, the problem stems from not a stright up fighter, but when you add in other ways to increase your base damage (not the extra dice, like sneak attack and energy). I've already listed how that could be done.

 

[two]

Umm, you seem not to understand the concept of opportunity cost. Every feat you take means that you cannot use that slot to take a different feat. Assuming that fighters will take thes efeats ignores the fact that it costs them slots to do so, a real cost. The fact that you always seem to take them doesn't mean that it is something that you get "for free".

No it doesn't. One can take the Improved Critical feat without specializing or focusing. It requires two less feats to do so, which most people other than you seem to realize is a fairly big deal.

Basically, your argument makes no sense, because you don't understand the term "cost".

Ok I'm make this brutally simply, since that's what seems to be needed.

You are a fighter8, and just levelled up to 9th (prerequisite for Improved Crit is BAB 8).

What feat do you wanna take? Well, you could take Improved Trip, Dodge, Improved Critical, whatever.

You ALREADY HAVE Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Power Attack.

These three are so common for anything other than a specialized fighter-types (trip master comes to mind) that it's not a stretch to assume that 75% of fighters will have them. Not all builds. But most.

You didn't pick Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack for the purpose of selecting Improved Critical. They were already chosen because, well, they are very useful feats in their own right in a wide variety of situations.

Picking Improved Critical at 9th doesn't require these other three, but is a lot more useful when they are there, as they typically are.

You seem to be saying that Weapon Specialization, for example, is a "cost" of Improved Critical because it makes Improved Critical that much better. It's not a "cost," it's an added benefit. WS is nice with IC, and nice without.

You honestly baffle me. It's like saying the Quicken MM feat has Magic Missile scribing/learning as a "cost" or something. Quicken is nice with Magic Missile, for sure, but Magic Missile is hardly useless without the Quicken feat.

 

[Storm Raven]

You ALREADY HAVE Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Power Attack.

Only because you invested in those feats before and didn't take other feats.

You seem to be saying that Weapon Specialization, for example, is a "cost" of Improved Critical because it makes Improved Critical that much better. It's not a "cost," it's an added benefit. WS is nice with IC, and nice without.

No, I'm saying that a character who has a combat ability that is the result of investing four different feats to accomplish it has invested a lot of resources in it.

The example assumes that a fighter who has taken those four feats will be able to deal out a lot of damage with his chosen weapon. Which is the point. He's put a bunch of feats into being able to do a lot of damage with the weapon.

You honestly baffle me.

That doesn't seem hard. Look up "opportunity cost" and then get back to me.