Why did they change the Keen rule and not the property?

[Pax]

Why does everyone miss the obvious point that people can create feats and magical effects that triple or quadruple threat range that overlaps with this stuff? It's how damn near everything else works. Skill Focus, Spell Focus, etc. Why not this as well? If anything, this rule change puts critical threat expansions in with the aforementioned abilities, creating a standard.

Boy, you must have a PUSHOVER of a WIMP for a GM. Custom feat, all for myself, that triples the threat range? Even one with ImpCritical as it's prerequisite?

The folks I game with would laugh me out of the room if I tried that.

Adn even if I found one GM who liked the idea, the odds are, not every GM would like it. Whereas, if it's in teh core rules, there's at least even odds it'll be accepted to any table.

Nonstacking threat-range modifiers shoudl have been a sidebar-presented optional rule. If Andy wants criticals to be rarer in HIS game, fine, let 'em be rarer ... in HIS game!

There was no mechanical breakdown causing the stackign of threat-range doublers in 3.0 to be broken and in need of a fix. IMO, Andy (and company) desperately needs to learn the phrase, "If it ain't broke ... don't fix it!"

 

[Anubis]

Boy, you must have a PUSHOVER of a WIMP for a GM. Custom feat, all for myself, that triples the threat range? Even one with ImpCritical as it's prerequisite?

I don't play, I *am* the DM.

The folks I game with would laugh me out of the room if I tried that.

Adn even if I found one GM who liked the idea, the odds are, not every GM would like it. Whereas, if it's in teh core rules, there's at least even odds it'll be accepted to any table.

Hahaha . . . Anyone else find this to be the absolute dumbest most nonsensical thing ever heard (not to mention the funniest)? You think that something tripling the threat range is outrageous, yet allowing two things that double the threat range to stack is okay?

Someone needs to go back to the basics, hahaha! I needed a good laugh! In case you don't know why I'm laughing and how stupid your statement was, allow me to point out that two doublings (stacking Keen and Improved Critical) and a tripling (any new feat or item that triples the threat range) ARE THE SAME THING! If you put Improved Critical and Keen on a rapier, the range is 12-20. If you triple the threat range, the range is 12-20.

Now of course if this was an honest mistake, I apologize for making fun of you. I do believe, however, that's your simply trolling and arguing about this rule change just to argue.

Nonstacking threat-range modifiers shoudl have been a sidebar-presented optional rule. If Andy wants criticals to be rarer in HIS game, fine, let 'em be rarer ... in HIS game!

There was no mechanical breakdown causing the stackign of threat-range doublers in 3.0 to be broken and in need of a fix. IMO, Andy (and company) desperately needs to learn the phrase, "If it ain't broke ... don't fix it!"

I agree with the decision, though, and I think most people would as well, or at least accept it. Critical hits SHOULD be special and rare, not common. If you want bigger threat ranges, make people pay more for it than a simple-to-obtain feat and a cheap magical enhancement. Make it costly. Make it hard to get. Something to make the crits more special.

 

[Pax]

I don't play, I *am* the DM.

First rule of being a good GM: always look at everythign form BOTH sides: GM and player. Apparently that's a lesson you missed.

Hahaha . . . Anyone else find this to be the absolute dumbest most nonsensical thing ever heard (not to mention the funniest)? You think that something tripling the threat range is outrageous, yet allowing two things that double the threat range to stack is okay?

No, I think creating a private, custom feat to work around the published rules would be taken as outrageous by many people.

Someone needs to go back to the basics, hahaha! I needed a good laugh! In case you don't know why I'm laughing and how stupid your statement was, allow me to point out that two doublings (stacking Keen and Improved Critical) and a tripling (any new feat or item that triples the threat range) ARE THE SAME THING! If you put Improved Critical and Keen on a rapier, the range is 12-20. If you triple the threat range, the range is 12-20.

I've known a lot of people who are strict by-the-book GMs; even proposing something that is not in the published book, they decry as munchkinism "of the worst sort" ... they're great GMs otherwise, but, the situation remains: a custom feat would get me laughed out of the room, if brought to THAT table.

Heck, I know some 3E GMs who still cite rules from FIRST edition, and are absolute by-the-book types.

Now of course if this was an honest mistake, I apologize for making fun of you. I do believe, however, that's your simply trolling and arguing about this rule change just to argue.

Then you haven't paid attention, and you need to consider remedial lessons in basic reading comprehension.

I don't think crit-range stacking was ever broken to begin with. Ergo, it didn't need to be addressed in the so-called "revision" in the first place.

I agree with the decision, though, and I think most people would as well, or at least accept it. Critical hits SHOULD be special and rare, not common. If you want bigger threat ranges, make people pay more for it than a simple-to-obtain feat and a cheap magical enhancement. Make it costly. Make it hard to get. Something to make the crits more special.

Then make them special in your own campaign; there was no need for the change to become the default ... plenty of folks other than me have objected in this thread, so I don't think acceptance would be nearly as universal as you seem to believe it would be.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Why does everyone miss the obvious point that people can create feats and magical effects that triple or quadruple threat range that overlaps with this stuff? It's how damn near everything else works. Skill Focus, Spell Focus, etc. Why not this as well? If anything, this rule change puts critical threat expansions in with the aforementioned abilities, creating a standard.

Of course you can do it. But such a feat would have high prereqs, or in the case of an item, would cost much. So you still have that tripple situation, but you pay more for it (which is OK I think, since it wasn't very difficult to get outrageous threat ranges at mid-level range). Also, while you can make a triple feat (a quadruple would be way out there), you cannot make several items, feats, and special abilities that stack and give you more than triple range if combined (keen weapon with improved crit and weapon master comes to mind).

I agree in that criticals should be somewhat special. A threat range of almost half the d20 isn't special.



And Pax, Anubis: Let's keep cool and stick to discussing things. Insulting people will lead nowhere, as won't unnecessarily heated bickering.

 

[Anubis]

KaeYoss, you made a great point.

Pax, I honestly don't care if you think that the revision wasn't needed. Not all revisions need be about game balance. Some are for flavor and for the general good of the game, and this is precisely that.

Your arguing is kinda like if you have a job AND welfare and the gov't decided to get rid of your welfare and you started complaining "Well why? You didn't NEED to take away the welfare just because I have a job and make $50,000/year!" (By the way, I know that can't happen, or at least I don't think it can, it's just the best example I could think of.) Basically, you say there was no need to change it, but I think it's been proven that there was no need to allow stacking in the first place!

 

[Pax]

KaeYoss, you made a great point.

Pax, I honestly don't care if you think that the revision wasn't needed. Not all revisions need be about game balance. Some are for flavor and for the general good of the game, and this is precisely that.

If it's not to fix something broken, then, it doesn't belong in a revision, it belongs in a new edition. I know I'm not alone in THAT opinion -- Monte Cook shares it, according to his own review of 3.5e ...

Your arguing is kinda like if you have a job AND welfare and the gov't decided to get rid of your welfare and you started complaining "Well why? You didn't NEED to take away the welfare just because I have a job and make $50,000/year!"

Actually, it'd be more like getting both Social Security checks and Food Stamps, and having to choose "one or the other".

Basically, you say there was no need to change it, but I think it's been proven that there was no need to allow stacking in the first place!

There's no need to allow multiclassing. There's no need to allow spellcasting. There's no need to allow nonhuman races. There's no need to allow skills. There's no need to allow feats.

Yet they're all part of Third Edition D&D, now, aren't they?

Saying something wasn't needed in teh first place is a straw man. I don't feel that the possibly-large threat ranges were all that much of a problem; in fact, I didn't find them to be a problem at all, in the slightest degree.

So, I'll turn your words around: it has been thoroughly and mathematically demonstrated here that there was no need to disallow stacking in the first place!

Andy Collins' aesthetic dislike of wide threat ranges shouldn't be made core solely because of Andy Collins' aesthetic dislike of wide threat ranges.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ... as simple as simple can get.

 

[Kodam]

PA?

Andy Collins has pointed out an additional factor (I don't remember where exactly). Its about Power Attack in 3.5. With the old stacking rule of keen and Imp.Crit. using the new PA would be devastating: if you use a falchion and PA for +2 you will get +8 of damage when scoring a crit. !! (Yes, this is a REAL double-doubling!)

 

[Anubis]

Re: PA?

Andy Collins has pointed out an additional factor (I don't remember where exactly). Its about Power Attack in 3.5. With the old stacking rule of keen and Imp.Crit. using the new PA would be devastating: if you use a falchion and PA for +2 you will get +8 of damage when scoring a crit. !! (Yes, this is a REAL double-doubling!)

That is a VERY good point, and quite a valid one. I mean, it wouldn't make a considerable difference until higher levels, but the rules should be balanced at all levels, so high levels need to be taken into consideration.

A Fighter 10/Weapon Master 10/Tempest 10 with a 1d6/18-20/x2 weapon, a high BAB, and Power Attack along with Great Cleave would be WAY overpowered even for Level 30.

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: PA?

That is a VERY good point, and quite a valid one. I mean, it wouldn't make a considerable difference until higher levels, but the rules should be balanced at all levels, so high levels need to be taken into consideration.

Its a point that as far as I can tell, was never actually made by Andy Collins, just one that has been speculated upon by others.

A Fighter 10/Weapon Master 10/Tempest 10 with a 1d6/18-20/x2 weapon, a high BAB, and Power Attack along with Great Cleave would be WAY overpowered even for Level 30.

A non-core character with two non-core prestige classes, advanced ten levels beyond the core rules into optional rules should not be the standard for evaluating a game feature.

Besides, why exactly is this sort of character overpowered? He's 30th level. If he's not facing foes who regularly have 500+ hit points and critical hit immunity then his DM is doing something wrong.

 

[Camarath]

I got my books yesterday. And, the only place I found this bit about Improved Critical and Keen not stacking is in the Keen description. So it looks like I jumped the gun a bit, unless it is stated else where.