Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Llathos 05-06-06, 02:25 PM	I understand the mechanics behind the removal of the stacking. I also have read the rebuttle arguments from Sean Reynolds on the subject. I thought of an interesting alternative synergistic effect of having both keen and IC: increase the multiplier. So, for instance, if you have a 19-20 longsword and you have Keen added to it, it's crit range goes to 17-20. Nice. If you take IC (longsword), the range doesn't open up wider, but your multipler goes up to x3 instead of x2. The effect is identical in "power", but you get away from the "I crit more than I hit normally" effect. However, when you DO crit, it'll mean more and might make taking both effects worthwhile. Some math: Basic formula for average damage with no modifiers, weapon only analysis goes: <dice damage> + <percentage chance to crit * average crit damage> Entries with * designate the suggestion new rule. Longsword Test Longsword +2 ( 1d8 + 2 19-20/x2): 1d8 + 2 + (10%*13) 6.5 + (1.3) = 7.8 average damage Longsword +1 keen ( 1d8 + 1 17-20/x2) 1d8 + 1 (20% * 11) 5.5 + (2.2) = 8.7 average damage *Longsword +1 keen with IC feat ( 1d8 + 1 17-20/x3) 1d8 + 1 +(20% * 16.5) 5.5+3.3 = 8.8 average damage 3.0 Keen+IC Longsword +1 Keen with IC feat( 1d8 +1 15-20/x2) 1d8 + 1 + (30% * 11) 5.5 + 3.3 = 8.8 average damage Rapier Test Rapier +2 (1d6 + 2 18-20/x2) 1d6 + 2 + (15% * 11) 3.5 + 2 + 1.65 = 7.15 average damage Rapier +1 Keen ( 1d6 + 1 15-20/x2) 1d6 + 1 +(30% * 9) 3.5 + 1 + 2.7 = 7.2 average damage *Rapier +1 Keen with IC feat ( 1d6 + 1 15-20/x3) 1d6 + 1 +(30% * 13.5) 3.5 + 1 + 4.05 = 8.55 average damage 3.0 Rapier +1 Keen with IC feat (1d6 + 1 12-20/x2) 1d6 + 1 + (40% * 9) 3.5 + 1 + 3.6 = 8.1 average damage Scythe Test Scythe +2 (2d4 +2 20/x4) 2d4 + 2 + (5% *28 ) 5 + 2 + 1.4 = 8.4 average damage Scythe +1 Keen (2d4 + 1 19-20/x4) 2d4 + 1 + (10% * 24) 5 + 1 + 2.4 = 8.4 average damage *Scythe + 1 Keen with IC feat (2d4 +1 19-20/x5) 2d4 + 1 + (10% * 30) 5 + 1 + 3 = 9 average damage 3.0 Keen Scythe with IC Scythe +1 Keen with IC feat ( 2d4 + 1 17-20/x4) 2d4 + 1 + (20% * 24) 5 + 1 + 4.8 = 10.8 damage High Power Test Scenario: Raging Barbarian with 26 Strength using a +4 Greataxe with Power Attack 5. The purpose of this is to try to reveal any statistical trends that might show an imbalance with large numbers of modifiers into the weapon's crit multiplier input. +4 Greataxe (1d12 20/x3) 1d12+4(enh)+16(str)+10(PA) + (5% * 109.5) 6.5+30+5.475 = 41.975 average damage +3 Keen Greataxe (1d12 20/x3) 1d12 + 3 (enh)+16(str)+10(PA)+(10% * 106.5) 6.5+29+10.65 = 46.15 average damage *+3 Keen Greataxe with IC feat (1d12 19-20/x4) 1d12 + 3(enh)+16(str)+10(PA)+(10%*142) 6.5+29+14.2 = 49.7 average damage 3.0 Keen GreatAxe with IC feat ( 1d12 17-20/x3) 1d12 +3 +16 +10 + (20%*106.5) 6.5 + 29 + 21.3 = 56.8 average damage Result: Increasing multiplier when stacking Keen and IC preserves usage of keen and IC as stackable advancements while maintaining both the "rate" of crits and the mechanical advantage of the 3.0 rules.
jaelis 05-06-06, 02:40 PM	I fixed the math for your plain weapons test. I think I got everything now. Longsword Test Longsword +2 ( 1d8 + 2 19-20/x2): 1d8 + 2 + (10%*6.5) 6.5 + (0.65) = 7.15 average damage Longsword +1 keen ( 1d8 + 1 17-20/x2) 1d8 + 1 (20% * 5.5) 5.5 + (1.1) = 6.6 average damage *Longsword +1 keen with IC feat ( 1d8 + 1 17-20/x3) 1d8 + 1 +(20% * 11) 5.5+2.2 = 7.7 average damage 3.0 Keen+IC Longsword +1 Keen with IC feat( 1d8 +1 15-20/x2) 1d8 + 1 + (30% * 5.5) 5.5 + 1.65 = 7.15 average damage Rapier Test Rapier +2 (1d6 + 2 18-20/x2) 1d6 + 2 + (15% * 5.5) 3.5 + 2 + .83= 6.33 average damage Rapier +1 Keen ( 1d6 + 1 15-20/x2) 1d6 + 1 +(30% * 4.5) 3.5 + 1 + 1.35 = 5.85 average damage *Rapier +1 Keen with IC feat ( 1d6 + 1 15-20/x3) 1d6 + 1 +(30% * 9) 3.5 + 1 + 2.7 = 7.2 average damage 3.0 Rapier +1 Keen with IC feat (1d6 + 1 12-20/x2) 1d6 + 1 + (45% * 4.5) 3.5 + 1 + 2.02 = 6.5 average damage Scythe Test Scythe +2 (2d4 +2 20/x4) 2d4 + 2 + (5% *21 ) 5 + 2 + 1.05 = 8.05 average damage Scythe +1 Keen (2d4 + 1 19-20/x4) 2d4 + 1 + (10% * 18) 5 + 1 + 1.8 = 7.8 average damage *Scythe + 1 Keen with IC feat (2d4 +1 19-20/x5) 2d4 + 1 + (10% * 24) 5 + 1 + 2.4 = 8.4 average damage 3.0 Keen Scythe with IC Scythe +1 Keen with IC feat ( 2d4 + 1 18-20/x4) 2d4 + 1 + (15% * 18) 5 + 1 + 2.7 = 8.7 damage It would be better to compare the rapier and the heavy pick (or falchion and scythe), since they should nominally be about the same.
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-06-06, 02:56 PM	The effect is identical in "power", but you get away from the "I crit more than I hit normally" effect. However, when you DO crit, it'll mean more and might make taking both effects worthwhile. No it's not, it's more powerful than stacking. Take your basic scimitar 18-20/x2. This is 3 numbers that each give you 1 extra hit (since it's an x2 multiplier). 3x1=3. Keen scimitar 15-20/x2, That's 6 numbers that each give 1 hit. 6x1=6. A keen/improved crit scimitar (assuming they stack) grants you 12-20/x2, That's 9 numbers that each give 1 hit. 9x1=9. Under your system, A keen IC scimitar is 15-20/x3. That's 6 numbers that gives you 2 hits each. 6x2=12. That's better than the stacking keen/improved crit scimitar.
Llathos 05-06-06, 09:34 PM	Uh....I did the math above that shows the effects of the "hits" you've added up there, and the math doesn't show that it's really overpowered at all... ...unless I'm misreading it somehow, even with the corrections.
Llathos 05-06-06, 09:36 PM	Also, I'm not sure I understand your corrections jaelis. To calculate average crit damage, I did average die damage + modifier * crit multiplier. For example, 1d8 + 2 19-20/x2 average crit damage is: 4.5 + 2 + (10% * (6.5*2)) or 6.5 + 1.3 = 7.8 average damage, as originally posted. How did you come up with an average crit damage of 1/2 of that?
jaelis 05-06-06, 10:08 PM	Because you are double counting. If you don't crit, you do 1d8+2 = 6.5. If you do crit, you do twice that, or 13. So if you hit you always do at least 6.5, and have a 10% chance to do an extra 6.5 more. What you had was that you always did 6.5, and had a 10% chance to do an extra 13, which would be a total of 19.5 on a crit. That's not right (for a x2 weapon). You could write it as 90%*6.5 + 10%*13 if you want, but that's the same as 100%*6.5 + 10%*6.5.
Vaelan 05-06-06, 10:41 PM	First of all, just adding one to multipliers is illogical. This simply makes the feature affect weapons with higher threat ranges more than it affects weapons with higher crit multipliers. It is a bad rule. Increasing multipliers should increase them to 2 * Multiplier - 1. This maintains the parity between weapons with high multipliers and weapons with high threat ranges. Here is the math to prove it... Ignoring the chance of missing, like you did in your math... ED = Expected Damage D = Damage T = Threat chance M = Crit Multiplier. For a Falchion with your version of Improved Critical and Keen (15-20/x3)... ED = D*(1-T) + D*M*T ED = D*(1-.30) + D*3*.30 ED = .70D + .90D ED = 1.60D For a Scythe with your version of Improved Critical and Keen (19-20/x5)... ED = D*(1-T) + D*M*T ED = D*(1-.10) + D*5*.10 ED = .90D + .50D ED = 1.40D For a Falchion with my recommended improvement of Improved Critical and Keen (15-20/x3)... ED = D*(1-T) + D*M*T ED = D*(1-.30) + D*3*.30 ED = .70D + .90D ED = 1.60D For a Scythe with my recommended improvement of Improved Critical and Keen (19-20/x7)... ED = D*(1-T) + D*M*T ED = D*(1-.10) + D*7*.10 ED = .90D + .70D ED = 1.60D
Llathos 05-07-06, 12:21 AM	Very interesting. I wouldn't have thought of that, but it does seem to maintain a constant balance...
calvinNhobbes 05-07-06, 12:37 AM	Here's my attempt at allowing Improved Critical and Keen Edge to stack. Improved Critical = +1 critical range and Keen Edge = +1 critical multiplier. The numbers in the parentheses are the values from doubling (or tripling) the critical range as normal. Comments welcome. 18-20/x2 = x4 Improved Critical Feat: 17-20/x2 = x5 (x7) Keen Edge: 18-20/x3 = x7 (x7) Both: 17-20/x3 = x9 (x10) 19-20/x2 = x3 Improved Critical Feat: 18-20/x2 = x4 (x5) Keen Edge: 19-20/x3 = x5 (x5) Both: 18-20/x3 = x7 (x7) x4 = x4 Improved Critical Feat: 19-20/x4 = x7 (x7) Keen Edge: x5 = x5 (x7) Both: 19-20/x5 = x9 (x10) x3 = x3 Improved Critical Feat: 19-20/x3 = x5 (x5) Keen Edge: x4 = x4 (x5) Both: 19-20/x4 = x7 (x7) x2 = x2 Improved Critical Feat: 19-20/x2 = x3 (x3) Keen Edge: x3 = x3 (x3) Both: 19-20/x3 = x5 (x4)
meatrace 05-07-06, 12:52 AM	this is precisely what I did in my game. I also created a +1 enhancement that adds +1 to the crit multiplier, called Sharpness.
Vaelan 05-07-06, 08:36 AM	Any new ability should maintain the mechanical equivalence between weapons with high threat ranges and weapons with high multipliers. For those of you who don't particularly like doing math, here is how one would increase critical multipliers... x2 -> x3 x3 -> x5 x4 -> x7 If you follow any other model, such as simply adding one to the multiplier, you will upset the balance between weapons with high crit multipliers and large threat ranges.
Subedei 05-07-06, 10:58 AM	A Disciple of Dispater rounding you down with his lance deals 15x damage on a critical and threatens at 14-20. 1d8 with 22str, +5 weapon, +10 from power attack = 420 average damage and those damage bonuses are EXTREMELY conservative. Several thousand damage is quite possible without even trying. There are just so many ways to abuse this it's not even funny.
calvinNhobbes 05-07-06, 01:12 PM	A Disciple of Dispater rounding you down with his lance deals 15x damage on a critical and threatens at 14-20. 1d8 with 22str, +5 weapon, +10 from power attack = 420 average damage and those damage bonuses are EXTREMELY conservative. Several thousand damage is quite possible without even trying. There are just so many ways to abuse this it's not even funny. I only use core rules, so I don't know what a "disciple of dispater" is, but with my rules the lance would do 19-20/x4. Doesn't sound broken at all. 14-20/x15!!!!!! Sounds like something is broken with the disciple not the crtical hit system. Any new ability should maintain the mechanical equivalence between weapons with high threat ranges and weapons with high multipliers. For those of you who don't particularly like doing math, here is how one would increase critical multipliers... x2 -> x3 x3 -> x5 x4 -> x7 If you follow any other model, such as simply adding one to the multiplier, you will upset the balance between weapons with high crit multipliers and large threat ranges. First, one would have to assume that there is in fact perfect balance between weapons, which there is not. I think my system comes pretty close to maintaining that balance, but it is not perfect. Overall, it reduces the power of the more powerful weapons and increases the weaker weapons a little.
DarknessEternal 05-07-06, 02:03 PM	You're average damages listed are completely meaningless. PCs add very large numbers to their damage. This damage would then be multiplied. Your "proof" for the balance of this houserule does not take this evidence into account.
jaelis 05-07-06, 02:06 PM	First, one would have to assume that there is in fact perfect balance between weapons, which there is not. I think my system comes pretty close to maintaining that balance, but it is not perfect. Overall, it reduces the power of the more powerful weapons and increases the weaker weapons a little. Your system reduces the power of the scythe, picks, and axes, compared to the the falchion, scimitar, and swords. With the normal system, these groups are well balanced. If you don't care or don't want that balance, then use your system and have fun.
narukagami 05-07-06, 02:11 PM	To be honest, I laugh when people try to crunch numbers to prove that letting keen and IC stack is broken. Especially if you only allow the two to triple the threat range when together. Why? Because 1) They almost always seem to fail to take into account you still have to conferm the crit. and 2) All it does is allow the melee fighter to come close to half the pure killing power of a full caster. I mean really, so what if that +1 keen/burst/burst/burst dire pick with IC kills off a big baddy in one good blow? By the time you accomplished this, the casters have not only killed off all his backup, but also the reserves, cut the supply line, killed the bbeg (twice), his family, their friends, their friend's family, raised his ancestors from the dead just for sake of being able to kill them too, and blew up the enemy castle. Afterwards pausing for tea while they wait for you to finish. If you think allowing Keen and IC is broken, take a look at a core only cleric and druid, keen and IC is nothing compaired to them. EDIT: Also, Wizard's official reasoning for not allowing them to stack had little to do with balance, it was because they thought it made crits 'less special'. And if thats your defense, the problem is your DMing, not the mechanics.
calvinNhobbes 05-07-06, 06:36 PM	Your system reduces the power of the scythe, picks, and axes, compared to the the falchion, scimitar, and swords. With the normal system, these groups are well balanced. If you don't care or don't want that balance, then use your system and have fun. Well if you really think those groups of weapons are well balanced to begin with then I can't argue with you because I do not think they are. To each their own. But I can argue that my system does not change the balance between 19-20/x2 weapons and x4 weapons, or 19-20/x2 and x3 weapons. Look at the numbers. Any extra benefit you would get from keen edge, the other gains from improved critical. In addition, once you stack the two the numbers are equal. Also, don't forget that in all this discussion we are completely disregarding bludgeoning weapons since they cannot be made keen. Where's the balance there!
Llathos 05-07-06, 06:39 PM	You're average damages listed are completely meaningless. PCs add very large numbers to their damage. This damage would then be multiplied. Your "proof" for the balance of this houserule does not take this evidence into account. Thank you for taking so much time to actually read my post. The last entry is a "high powered" calculation done for precisely the reason you post above. As the numbers show, it really didn't imbalance things at all. In fact, it provided the best justification of all my tests: it showed that you get a gain from stacking the feat and enchantment without getting anywhere near the "brokenness" of the 3.0 stacking rules. To be honest, I laugh when people try to crunch numbers to prove that letting keen and IC stack is broken.... EDIT: Also, Wizard's official reasoning for not allowing them to stack had little to do with balance, it was because they thought it made crits 'less special'. And if thats your defense, the problem is your DMing, not the mechanics. Another useful response. :rolleyes: The entire purpose of my post was to allow a means for keen and IC to stack so that there wouldn't be a competing non-stacking feat/weapon enchantment combination. I actually AGREE with their justification that it makes crit's less special when you entirely rely upon them for your damage generation. Hence my suggestion for preserving the "special-ness" of crits by keeping the range tight but increasing the effect so it might still be worthwhile to invest in both the feat and the enchantment.
calvinNhobbes 05-07-06, 06:43 PM	To be honest, I laugh when people try to crunch numbers to prove that letting keen and IC stack is broken. Especially if you only allow the two to triple the threat range when together. Why? Because 1) They almost always seem to fail to take into account you still have to conferm the crit. and 2) All it does is allow the melee fighter to come close to half the pure killing power of a full caster. I mean really, so what if that +1 keen/burst/burst/burst dire pick with IC kills off a big baddy in one good blow? By the time you accomplished this, the casters have not only killed off all his backup, but also the reserves, cut the supply line, killed the bbeg (twice), his family, their friends, their friend's family, raised his ancestors from the dead just for sake of being able to kill them too, and blew up the enemy castle. Afterwards pausing for tea while they wait for you to finish. If you think allowing Keen and IC is broken, take a look at a core only cleric and druid, keen and IC is nothing compaired to them. EDIT: Also, Wizard's official reasoning for not allowing them to stack had little to do with balance, it was because they thought it made crits 'less special'. And if thats your defense, the problem is your DMing, not the mechanics. Ya, the point of my house rule was not because I thought stacking keen and improved crit was broken (especially compared to CODzilla and casters as you pointed out) but because I prefer the idea of criticals being rarer but more damaging.
calvinNhobbes 05-07-06, 06:58 PM	I applaud your efforts Llathos. :D
Hochiu 05-07-06, 07:12 PM	I only use core rules, so I don't know what a "disciple of dispater" is, but with my rules the lance would do 19-20/x4. Doesn't sound broken at all. I've noticed that people often use non-core material as an excuse for the "brokenness" of otherwise non-broken core rules and mechanics. Two examples: 1) Weapon Enhancement: Blurstrike + Iaijutsu Focus: A lot of people not familiar with Oriental Adventures take one look at IF focus with this weapon enhancement and go "Zomgwtfbrokenlawl!" And constantly put it down as broken without actually reading through the rules. And 2) Frenzied Berserker: ...Do I need to say ANYTHING about this one? Now. Would you nerf the barbarian because of the frenzied berserker prestige class? I doubt it. Some may argue for the removal from Iaijutsu Focus from the game, as its not a core mechanic. But if I wanted to make a Japanese themed Asian world, and I wanted to have iajutsu duels, what would I do? Honestly? I'd nuke the blurstrike enhancement instead of the IF skill. Infact, when I told my friend about my idea to stack keen and Imp. Crit, he started freaking out about it to me. And he listed one weapon that would "apparently" get a critical threat range of 5-20 because of it. Guess where it was from? The non-core Arms and Equipment Guide. He didnt even crack open books to see if it was possible. He just remembered some weapon he saw in that book and wrote it off as broken. So, to everyone who makes a big deal about Keen and IC being "so broken", I fail to see how this is one of the biggest issues about the rules when there are such things as the frenzied berserker out there. Or the unerrataed warlock.
jaelis 05-07-06, 10:02 PM	Well if you really think those groups of weapons are well balanced to begin with then I can't argue with you because I do not think they are. To each their own. Well, one can be a bit more objective for this topic since it is mostly a numerical question. Let's compare a heavy pick (1d6, 20/x4) with a scimitar (1d6, 18-20/x2). In either case, suppose our character has a damage bonus D (from magical enhancements, strength, power attack, whatever). With neither keen nor Imp Crit, the pick man does 3.5+D if he doesn't crit (95% chance), and 4*(3.5+D) if he does crit (5% chance). So his average damage is 0.95*(3.5+D) + 0.05*4*(3.5+D) = 1.15*(3.5+D). The scimitar wielder does 3.5+D with no crit (85% chance) and 2*(3.5+D) if he does crit (15% chance). That adds up to 1.15*(3.5+D), same as the pick man. Thus their average damages are the same, and I claim that makes them balanced. If you add keen or Imp Crit, both damages increase to 1.3*(3.5+D), still equal and still balanced. If you allow keen and Imp Crit to stack, both weapons go to 1.45*(3.5+D), which is still balanced. If you add Imp Crit and have keen increase the crit multiplier by 1, then the pick becomes 19-20/x5, giving an average damage 1.4*(3.5+D), while the scimitar becomes 15-20/x3, for damage 1.6*(3.5+D). These are no longer equal. Thus I claim your system objectively favors the high threat range weapons over the high crit ones. Unless you have some other definition of balanced you would like to suggest, I don't see how you can argue with this. If you do as Vaelan suggests, then the pick would become 19-20/x7, which does give average damage 1.6*(3.5+D), and would be balanced. Note that I'm not talking about overall game balance. If you want to make any critical hit cause your opponent to explode in a fiery inferno, that is fine with me, it's your game. And if you want the scimitar to be better than the pick, that's fine too. But I'm not going to let you claim that your system treats them equally, because that would be misleading to other readers who don't have the math skills to work this out for themselves.
meatrace 05-07-06, 10:11 PM	a few points to make 1)I think crits should be special. you shouln't be able to crit more than 25% of the time, no matter how fantastical you are at doing so. 2)not all feats/spells/classes/weapon enhancements are created equal. if you insist that keen and improved crit must remain balanced, then you must balance them against mighty cleaving and spell focus(abjuration).
Subedei 05-07-06, 10:12 PM	And what is your definition of core? I'm only using official material here. I can't imagine you mean only the PHB, DMG and MM. Who on earth doesn't play with the complete series at least?
Vaelan 05-08-06, 01:29 AM	A Disciple of Dispater rounding you down with his lance deals 15x damage on a critical and threatens at 14-20. Wrong. The rules for multiplying damage on charges clearly outlines what happens on a critical hit. Just as doubling a double ends up as a triple, Tripling a quintuple ends up as a septuple. calvinNhobbes, you're saying a lot of things in this thread that simply aren't true. That which you have said has been mathematically and rhetorically disproven on several occasions. Nonetheless, I invite you to support your statements on either a rhetorical or mathematical level. If you don't, then don't expect anyone to particularly care what you post.
Subedei 05-08-06, 02:05 AM	Ahh, right, I forgot about that. It certainly does apply in this case, not that it really changes things much. If you can hit something with your charge it generally will die. Not using classes that specialize in criticals would help, yes, but you're still significantly boosting their power. I'm thinking Revenant Blade with multiple burst enchantments applied would work quite nicely as well. Normally the burst enchantments just aren't worth the price IMO considering you either don't crit enough for it to matter or don't have a high enough multiplier for it to matter, this ruling means you can have both. I'm not necessarily saying its a bad thing, just very powerful in the right hands.
DarknessEternal 05-08-06, 09:45 AM	Thank you for taking so much time to actually read my post. The last entry is a "high powered" calculation done for precisely the reason you post above. I did read it. It's still incomplete. Taking only one weapon and one case is not adequate.
jokotoko 05-08-06, 09:59 AM	And what is your definition of core? I'm only using official material here. I can't imagine you mean only the PHB, DMG and MM. Who on earth doesn't play with the complete series at least? PHB, DMG and MM, is indeed the definition of core. Some include all material in the SRD, but the complete series are certainly not "core". For your final statement, my group doesn't play with the complete series for the moment, or any of the other non-core books that we own. The main reason is that we have several new players that we like to introduce to the game slowly. Last time I checked, I was still located on Earth, so that falsifies your theory.
calvinNhobbes 05-08-06, 10:14 AM	If you add Imp Crit and have keen increase the crit multiplier by 1, then the pick becomes 19-20/x5, giving an average damage 1.4*(3.5+D), while the scimitar becomes 15-20/x3, for damage 1.6*(3.5+D). You didn't read my post close enough. In my system, improved critical does not double the critical threat range. It only increases it by 1 number. This maintains the overall balance of the weapons at 1.4*D with stacking. However, it also means that the scimitar would be 1.3*D with keen, while the pick would be a 1.2*D with keen. But this effect is opposite with improved critical (+1 threat range) making the scimitar a 1.2*D weapon and the pick a 1.3*D weapon, thereby maintaining the overall balance.
calvinNhobbes 05-08-06, 10:18 AM	Wrong. calvinNhobbes, you're saying a lot of things in this thread that simply aren't true. That which you have said has been mathematically and rhetorically disproven on several occasions. Nonetheless, I invite you to support your statements on either a rhetorical or mathematical level. If you don't, then don't expect anyone to particularly care what you post. I have provided mathematical evidence, but people have misread it on several occasions like my correction of jaelis's post. Plus no one has answered the most obvious balance question of all! Why do bludgeoning weapons get the shaft?
jaelis 05-08-06, 10:28 AM	You didn't read my post close enough. In my system, improved critical does not double the critical threat range. It only increases it by 1 number. This maintains the overall balance of the weapons at 1.4*D with stacking. However, it also means that the scimitar would be 1.3*D with keen, while the pick would be a 1.2*D with keen. But this effect is opposite with improved critical (+1 threat range) making the scimitar a 1.2*D weapon and the pick a 1.3*D weapon, thereby maintaining the overall balance. OK, well fair enough. Sorry I got on your case about it.
calvinNhobbes 05-08-06, 10:42 AM	OK, well fair enough. Sorry I got on your case about it. No apology needed. You're comments have been well thought out and extremely useful. If I cannot thoroughly defend my position I have no reason to give it, as Vaelan so bluntly pointed out.
Llathos 05-08-06, 06:21 PM	Thanks for the comments everyone, and to calvin for backing me up. Also thanks to jaelis for his correction factor for balancing high threat vs high crit multiplier weapons to even further enhance the balance of my suggested rule. I think it's reasonable and makes taking both a valid option. I'll playtest it awhile and see how it goes.
Vaelan 05-09-06, 01:40 AM	Curse my inability to read! Sorry about that, calvinNhobbes. You're right about the interaction of the two abilities.
calvinNhobbes 05-09-06, 09:30 AM	Curse my inability to read! Sorry about that, calvinNhobbes. You're right about the interaction of the two abilities. No problem! It's always good to have others check your math.