Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="comrade raoul" data-source="post: 1002767" data-attributes="member: 554">First, the character's threat range is 10-20, not 9-20 (18-20 base, 15-20 Improved Critical, 12-20 keen, 10-20 weapon master); also, burst weapons are actually very weak (do some math; you'll find it's always better to have an extra regular energy effect for +2d6 all the time than a burst effect for +1d6 and the occasional +1d6+1d10).Consider the math before complaining about critical threat ranges. A pick with keen and Improved Critical effects deals just as much expected damage as a rapier with the same benefits; in practice, the pick is probably a bit better -- as isoChron pointed out, as a threat range becomes very large, it begins to show diminishing marginal returns, since it becomes increasingly likely that a d20 attack roll will be good enough to threaten a critical but not good enough to hit. (Note that this also means that, in a way, your desire for threat ranges to have diminishing marginal returns is already written implicitly into the rules.) Also note that a weapon master is much better off with a high multiplier weapon than a high threat range weapon, for reasons that should also be clear below (so it's hardly your rapier-wielding weapon master that's abusive -- it's more more likely to be your pick-wielder).Why is this the case? Consider that, with an x2 multiplier, each point of threat range offers a 5% chance to do +100% damage, which means that each point of threat range with an x2 multiplier yields an additional 5% expected damage. But with an x4 multiplier, each point of threat range offers a 5% chance to do +300% damage, which means each point of threat range with an x4 multiplier yields an additional 15% expected damage. This is why 18-20/x2 rapiers are balanced against 20/x4 picks: each yields the same amount of additional expected damage (15%), and this is also why, with keen effects and Improved Critical, rapiers are balanced against picks, even though the rapier has a higher threat range -- the rapier has a 45% chance to cause +100% damage, and the pick has a 15% chance to cause +300% damage.Finally, this is also why "flat" increases in threat range are inherently unbalanced in favor of high-multiplier weapons: the weapon master's +2 threat range with an x2 weapon yields a +10% chance to cause +100% damage, increasing expected damage by 10% (thus, a rapier master's 10-20/x2 threat range offers a total 55% additional expected damage), while the same bonus with an x4 weapon yields a +10% chance to cause +300% damage, increasing expected damage by 30% (thus, a pick master's 16-20/x4 threat range yields a massive 75% additional expected damage). This imbalance is true for all high-multiplier weapons (although it's less pronounced with axes or most swords, say) -- which means it's just irrational for you to be more concerned about the power of the rapier-wielding weapon master than the power of the high-multiplier one.This rule is unfair; see the math above. The "with a minimum of one each time" clause means that while your house-rule weakens high-threat-range characters, it leaves high-multiplier characters quite powerful. A rapier master's crit of 12-20/x2 offers an additional 45% expected damage (down from +55% originally), while the pick master keeps his old 16-20/x4 crit and is just as powerful (with +75% expected damage). Even if you don't use weapon masters, your system still favors high-multiplier weapons (but to a slightly lesser degree): just given keen and Improved Critical, the rapier's 13-20/x2 crit offers +40% expected damage, while the picks 18-20/x4 crit offers the stronger +45% expected damage. So unless you wanted to make high-multiplier weapons objectively better than high-threat-range weapons, don't adopt this rule.</blockquote>

Verification