Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kn1ves 07-04-06, 10:15 AM	What are peoples thoughts on the 3.5 ruling that Improved Critical and the Keen ability don't stack? Personally I think it's stupid and every game I play in since 3.5 we've just gone by the old rules. Improved Critical means that you know where to place your weapon for the greatest effect and the Keen ability means your blade has an unusually sharp edge so I don't see how those two factors wouldn't add up to more damaging blows more often. A fighter is sitting there with a Keen Greataxe and he has the Imp. Crit feat so he knows where to bury that axe in an opponenets body to do the most damage, now say he gets jumped by, I don't know, an Eskimo Samurai. Our fighter knows where to swing that axe to bury it for a critical hit but sometimes he won't hit straight on with it so the Keen ability comes into play and hits that might not have threatened criticals still sink deep enough to count as crits because of the wicked sharp edge the axe has on it. I say it makes sense that they stack.
tarkin 07-04-06, 10:45 AM	Criticals are supposed to be 'extra' good hits that got a particularly vital area. Allowing them to stack on a 20x2 weapon, a 19-20x2 weapon or a 20x3 weapon is a reasonable house rule that does not result in abuses either from a role-playing perspective or a balance perspective. Bu unless you put in that restriction, using them as an example demonstrates either ignorance or an attempt to trick the rest of us. Allowing IC and keen to stack on a 18-20x2 weapon makes it easy to get a crit range of 12-20. That means that if you have a high BAB, a large portion of the time you will be UNABLE to hit and not threaten a crit. Then you have over 50% of your hits a crit. In effect it totally negates the concept of a crit, and is stupid from either role-playing perspective or a balance perspective. Similar (but less obvious) balance issues occure on a 20x4 weapon, particularly if you use a lance and Spirited Charge.
Horatio Hornblower 07-04-06, 10:56 AM	Kn1ves, I agree with your logic, but tarkin is correct. The combo is too powerful. Now if the melee characters in your campaign are overshadowed by the spellcasters maybe you want to give them an "edge" (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
Derren S. 07-04-06, 10:58 AM	I also agree with Tarkin. Crits should be "special" but with those two things stacking it is too easy to get the crit range so low that nearly every hit is a crit. Also it is kind of unbalancing when you nearly always do double damage.
Paraxis 07-04-06, 11:11 AM	First I disagree with you, improved crit an keen should not stack and I hate terrorists (more on that in a second). Anyway the reason they should not is simple it gives the power attacking two-handed sword guy even more crazy, not because you crit on 12-20 with a rapier, but with the new feat out of PHB2 that allows sneak attack on all crits thats a good reason to not allow it as well. Now for a more informed mans view on the matter I link you to Sean K Reynolds rant on the matter. EDIT: I will admit maybe more informed on D&D and game design, but after reading his political views not more informed on the real world, wow I totaly disagree with this man on almost everything, but I love the game he helped remake.. I guess there is some common ground between a GOP loving man like myself and a hippie liberal brainwashed by the drive by media. http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html You now get why I mentioned terrorists.
Magnus Magus 07-04-06, 11:12 AM	Anything that is allowed by the players is also allowed by the NPCs. If you don't mind more potential for a TPK every game, then by all means stack criticals.
Kn1ves 07-04-06, 01:13 PM	Criticals are supposed to be 'extra' good hits that got a particularly vital area. Allowing them to stack on a 20x2 weapon, a 19-20x2 weapon or a 20x3 weapon is a reasonable house rule that does not result in abuses either from a role-playing perspective or a balance perspective. Bu unless you put in that restriction, using them as an example demonstrates either ignorance or an attempt to trick the rest of us. Honestly it was the first weapon I picked out of my head. No trickery or ignorance was involved, just the first off the stack of weapons. Now if the melee characters in your campaign are overshadowed by the spellcasters maybe you want to give them an "edge" Melee characters are almost always overshadowed by spellcasters in the late game. Plus I'm not saying it should be easy to get a keen weapon, my DM runs a world where there are no shops to just magically upgrade equipment. If we want something special made we have to go requisition it from a crafter, which involves finding the crafter in the first place, and then usally take an apprentice or two of his out adventuring for a bit to gather up the necessary xp for the item or give it ourselves. I'm not sure if that's technically legal per the core books but he allows shared xp costs for item creation. Lots of role playing involved when dealing with arcane equipment peddelars. If a DM is afraid of players abusing the stacking houserule then he should make it a challenge for them to get a proper weapon. By the way if those low level apprentices die the deal is probably off and the player is in a whole other mess. Anything that is allowed by the players is also allowed by the NPCs. Of course.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 02:01 PM	People never seem to get that you still need to hit to crit threat. Crits aren't supposed to be special, they serve a purpose of balancing higher level melee warriors against spellcasters.
syl_karagh 07-04-06, 02:13 PM	People never seem to get that you still need to hit to crit threat. Crits aren't supposed to be special, they serve a purpose of balancing higher level melee warriors against spellcasters. Spellcasters can also deal crits wit spells.
William1976 07-04-06, 02:24 PM	I am a DM that uses many house rules. But I do try to keep rules as written for the most part. When a spcecific rule comes up that I dont like or seems not balanced or practical in the D&D world, I make a decision on it. The main reason I alter rules is to make the game more balanced or to add something that is missing. I am not perfect and not everything I change or add may or may not be the best idea in others opinion. I also always use the players opinions in all of the decisions as well. As for the critical stacking rule: its fine as written. Its not unbalanced, its not too weak. Why change it? You either buy a feat or buy a keen weapon. simple. If you as a player or DM wants to increase the chance further take or allow the weapon master presitge class (from orental adventures, one of the class features is it adds +2 crit range, it does not allow IC or keen to stack still.). The class was made in 3.0, but changing it to 3.5 gives the players a option to get a 10% incease on crits. It is a prestige class, and a rare one, so the players need to spend time and money and even a quest to gain the class. So instead of altering a rule that is not a problem anyways, just try to add something or make something in your opinion as DM that improves the world. William
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 02:37 PM	Spellcasters can also deal crits wit spells. And the second you can have a keen scorching ray, it will matter.
Wonton2006 07-04-06, 02:46 PM	Improved Critical: Ray.
Mystyc 07-04-06, 03:03 PM	This may or may not be relevant to the discussion, but there are instances when critical hits carry more benefits than just added damage, such as wounding weapons. Stacking the increased-threat effects makes it much easier to trigger these abilities.
CryoSilver 07-04-06, 03:47 PM	Wounding weapons deal 1 Con damage... What else do they do on a crit?
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 04:01 PM	Improved Critical: Ray. Note that I said 'Keen' because keening and improved critical are, in fact two utterly different things (another reason they should stack: basic simian common sense -- weapon quality != skill) Edit: I don't think wounding weapons do double Con damage on a crit. criticals shoudl only apply to hp damage. Sweet lord, roll a natural 20 on a ray of enfeeblement with that houserule...
Derren S. 07-04-06, 04:01 PM	Melee characters are almost always overshadowed by spellcasters in the late game. Ah, the "ultimate argument". When do people get it that pileing unreasonable bonuses on top of each other without a plan won't change that and will make fighter even more unbalanced?
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 04:10 PM	Ah, the "ultimate argument". When do people get it that pileing unreasonable bonuses on top of each other without a plan won't change that and will make fighter even more unbalanced? Enhancing crits is not unreasonable and creates no imbalance.
tui 07-04-06, 04:26 PM	I think it will definately unbalance things in favor of melee-er in the mid levels.. I saw a lot of abuse of the stacking rule in 3.0 and thought the change was for the better. It might not be such a problem at higher levels when spellcasters have so much power... So if you want them to stack, I'd recommend making a new feat that allows you to stack keen and ImpCrit, but has a high BAB prerequisite.. like maybe 12+ or 15+.
Ogre4Hire 07-04-06, 05:11 PM	I think the seperation of IC/Keen might have been a knee-jerk against the Keen/Improved Crit/Vorpal Simitar (or worse, Bladed Gauntlet) in 3.0. But with Vorpal nerfed the way it is, that's really no longer a problem.
Nom 07-04-06, 07:40 PM	As odd as it sounds, allowing vastly increased crit ranges provides a lot more benefit to a 20/x3 or 20/x4 weapon than an 18-20/x2 weapon. The high multiplier weapons do really nasty hits more often. The high range weapons lose their benefit quickly due to the threat range being larger than the target AC. Summary: allowing larger threat ranges actually benefits the weapons that are supposed to do big crits, not many crits. Balance isn't too much of an issue. keen and IC are interesting, but it's in practice hard to find scenarios where the mean damage from the above is better than using a +1 enhancement and Greater Weapon Focus.
Vaelan 07-04-06, 08:04 PM	The combo is too powerful No, it isn't. It has been mathematically demonstrated on these forums that crit-dependant weapons with Improved Critical and Keen stacking are less than 15% better than weapons that depend on damage dice for a damage-optimized core character, and that is only after suffering a smaller disadvantage for a large number of levels. The fact that there are a lot of creatures that are immune to critical hits paired with the relatively small magnitude of the advantage should make it quite clear that this is not the case. Some people don't like crits being common and they fabricate more credible reasons (balance) to support their opinion that they shouldn't stack. They never bother showing their math or their reasoning behind the argument that it is unbalanced for the simple reason that they haven't done the math nor have they bothered to formulate any reason beyond "I don't like common crits". I would love to see any math behind the claim that they are unbalanced, but considering the number of times I've posted mathematical support of my claim that they are not, I doubt that anyone who would make such a claim is even capable of doing the appropriate math, let alone particularly inclined to. I think the seperation of IC/Keen might have been a knee-jerk against the Keen/Improved Crit/Vorpal Simitar (or worse, Bladed Gauntlet) in 3.0. The developers responsible for the change actually made a statement about it. They said that the change was purely a matter of keeping critical hits special.
Vaelan 07-04-06, 08:11 PM	As odd as it sounds, allowing vastly increased crit ranges provides a lot more benefit to a 20/x3 or 20/x4 weapon than an 18-20/x2 weapon. The high multiplier weapons do really nasty hits more often. The high range weapons lose their benefit quickly due to the threat range being larger than the target AC. A common argument that is disproven by the standards given in the Monster Manual. The Monster Manual suggests that the AC of any given opponent should be around 13+CR. I checked 25 monsters from the Monster Manual and the largest deviation was 3 with the majority of creatures coming in well below the CR+13 mark. CR should be, at most, APL+3 which means that the most AC you're going to come across is level+6. When considering feats like Weapon Focus, having a Strength bonus to hit, and the fact that all Keen weapons are +1, this is not an issue for any character with Good BAB. Even if this were true, you have to consider that quadruple damage is overkill quite often, which is a much bigger issue than a part of your threat range being truncated by high ACs.
starfire311 07-04-06, 08:23 PM	As odd as it sounds, allowing vastly increased crit ranges provides a lot more benefit to a 20/x3 or 20/x4 weapon than an 18-20/x2 weapon. The high multiplier weapons do really nasty hits more often. The high range weapons lose their benefit quickly due to the threat range being larger than the target AC. um from a straight stats side there is no difference in weapon out put on a D8 weapon that has 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 if you keen these so it is 15-20/x2 and 19-20/x4 they are still the same and if you let IC stack so you have 12-20/x2 18-20/x4 they are still the same. you can argue that the wider crit range is wasted when you need to roll higher than the threat range to hit like needing a 15+ to hit but you threat on a 12+, thus making the wider crit range weaker... but you can also argue that the x4 is wasted when you only need x2 to drop the target. for example... here is the average expected damage of a d8 weapon that needs a 11+(50% chance) to hit the target 18+/x2 =2.5875 20/x4 = 2.5875 15+/x2 = 2.925 19+/x4 = 2.925 12+/x2 = 3.2625 18+/x4 = 3.2625
Wonton2006 07-04-06, 08:54 PM	There are lots of abilities that activate only on a crit. Imagine a Flaming/Icy/Shocking Burst weapon that's also Keen and has IC. Deadly. The swashbuckler has an ability that does, correct me if I'm wrong, 2 Str damage on a crit, and another one that does 2 Con damage on a crit. While I completely agree with the makes sense argument, it's game balance. Imagine a Leap Attacking Frenzied Berserker using that 7:1 power attack ratio with a Keen and IC Scythe and critting as often as they would.
Nephlite 07-04-06, 10:04 PM	There are lots of abilities that activate only on a crit. Imagine a Flaming/Icy/Shocking Burst weapon that's also Keen and has IC. Deadly. The swashbuckler has an ability that does, correct me if I'm wrong, 2 Str damage on a crit, and another one that does 2 Con damage on a crit. While I completely agree with the makes sense argument, it's game balance. Imagine a Leap Attacking Frenzied Berserker using that 7:1 power attack ratio with a Keen and IC Scythe and critting as often as they would. Dude, it is 6:1, not. And I say, that isn't that much abusive. FB's unless played smartly will kill party so problem gone. :D
Wonton2006 07-04-06, 10:35 PM	I'm pretty sure there was some way to get 7:1, that involved a feat or two, but I forget the actual method. Anyone gone to the CharOp boards recently? ;)
Mystyc 07-05-06, 12:07 AM	The swashbuckler has an ability that does, correct me if I'm wrong, 2 Str damage on a crit, and another one that does 2 Con damage on a crit. Yes, that's weakening and wounding critical, respectively. The wounding critical ability is what I was thinking of earlier when I wrote "wounding weapons" -- I forgot that, even though they share the name, wounding critical and the wounding weapon enhancement operate differently. Anyway, the swashbuckler abilities and other similar things, like the Nine Lives Stealer, is what I meant. When you can crit on 12-20, those abilities become near-guarantees.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-05-06, 01:01 AM	There are lots of abilities that activate only on a crit. Imagine a Flaming/Icy/Shocking Burst weapon that's also Keen and has IC. Deadly. The swashbuckler has an ability that does, correct me if I'm wrong, 2 Str damage on a crit, and another one that does 2 Con damage on a crit. While I completely agree with the makes sense argument, it's game balance. Imagine a Leap Attacking Frenzied Berserker using that 7:1 power attack ratio with a Keen and IC Scythe and critting as often as they would. 1) +1 Keen, Flaming Burst, Shocking Burst, Icy Burst weapon = +8 enhancement bonus, 128,000gp For the price of your own infinite layer of the Abyss, you get: Base damage +1+3d6(energies) normal (average:base+13) and Base +1+3d6+3d10(energies) on crit (average:64) This weapon can be purchased easily with all of your 15th level wealth save 20k. Go to know, provided you hit with your +1 weapon and no other enhancements. For the same price, You could have bought a +2 Brilliant energy weapon, deal damage far more often and have 76k to play with out of your 15th level wealth to boot. 2) You will never win a balance argument with a Frenzied Berserker as part of your example.
Nom 07-05-06, 01:36 AM	this is not an issue for any character with Good BAB.... on their primary attack. Once you figure in iterative attacks and various other penalties it can become an issue. Even if this were true, you have to consider that quadruple damage is overkill quite often, which is a much bigger issue than a part of your threat range being truncated by high ACs.Not really. What you should really be interested in is expected number of attacks to kill. For simplicity, let's consider only 1 attack / round. Assume I need 11 or better to hit. Compare a weapon that does 1d6+10 12-20/x2 and a weapon that does 1d6+10 18-20/x4. Mean damage per strike is identical at 0.5 * 13.5 * 1.45 = 0.5 * 19.575 = 9.785. Using mean damage, it will take 10 attacks to kill a creature with 100 hp. However, that's not an overly useful number. For 12-20/x2, your damage per attack is as follows: 50%: nil 27.5%: 1d6+10 (13.5) 22.5%: 2d6+20 (27) For 18-20/x4, your damage per attack is as follows: 50%: nil 42.5%: 1d6+10 (13.5) 7.5%: 4d6+40 (54) What if the creature had only 50 points (and assuming we always roll 13.5 damage)? For 12-20/x2: Pr (kill in one attack) = 0 Pr (kill in 2 attacks) = 5.1% (total 5.1%) Pr (kill in 3 attacks) = 13.0% (total 18.0%) Pr (kill in 4 attacks) = 16.7% (total 34.7%) For 18-20/x4: Pr (kill in one attack) = 7.5% Pr (kill in 2 attacks) = 6.9% (total 14.4%) Pr (kill in 3 attacks) = 6.4% (total 20.9%) Pr (kill in 4 attacks) = 9.2% (total 30.1%) Interesting, no?
Crimson_Concerto 07-05-06, 01:37 AM	My group has had this argument before about this logic vs balance, and we've come up with a simple house rule: Keen, Improve Critical stack, and other similar miscelanious abilities stack, but instead of doubling your threat range, they simply add one to it. Ta-da. Balance+Logic accomplished. :D
Nom 07-05-06, 02:19 AM	instead of doubling your threat range, they simply add one to it. Ta-da. Balance+Logic accomplished. :DLogic accomplished, maybe. Balance totally skewed.
TekknoMancer 07-05-06, 02:41 AM	I think they should be allowed to stack: reason is that I find it VERY cheap that a +1 weapon enhancement would render a feat useless. Sure, that +1 enhancement could be used for something else if you have IC. But if you have a keen weapon, you should get some kind of reward for having IC. With crit. immunes and fortification, I don't see allowing them to stack as too much of an issue. The important thing to remember is that you still have to hit and confirm the critical. Now the 3.0 version of vorpal...I can see an issue with that and crits stacking.
SageInBlack 07-05-06, 03:11 AM	We are testing something in our group at the moment dealing with this problem Keen makes the weapon damage is 1 "die" bigger... so a Keen Falchion instead 2d4 it becomes 1d4+1d6 for damage... and Lance being 1d8 becomes 1d10 and so on.. we haven't decided about 1d3 and 1d12 [if i ever saw one] (since no body in our campaign uses a weapon that is 1d3 damage) and we keep the IC the way it is. another thing we thought up is... Keen increases the crit multiplyer when it is stacked with IC.. so a Whip with X2 crit becomes 19-20 (from IC)/ X3 (from keen) and when either IC or Keen just doubles the threat range.
trolloc 07-05-06, 03:39 AM	yep that is similar to starfire311 idea in the Improving Critical Damage (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=661491) thread in the "Skills and Feats" forum. Me too, i'll houserule this, where the first (keen or imp. critical) gives an extra 2 range and the second stacks by giving an extra multiplier on the first 2 threat range. Keen longsword crit 17-20/x2 Improved Critical longsword crit 17-20/x2 Improved Critical with keen longsword 17-18/x2, 19-20/x3 or Keen longsword crit 19-20/x3 Improved Critical longsword crit 17-20/x2 Improved Critical with keen longsword 17-18/x2, 19-20/x3
starfire311 07-05-06, 09:06 AM	My group has had this argument before about this logic vs balance, and we've come up with a simple house rule: Keen, Improve Critical stack, and other similar miscelanious abilities stack, but instead of doubling your threat range, they simply add one to it. Ta-da. Balance+Logic accomplished. :D logic perhaps to you, but balance no way. Keen+IC is far better for a battle axe than it is for a longsword in your case 18+/x3 is better than 16+/x2 yep that is similar to starfire311 idea in the Improving Critical Damage (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=661491) thread in the "Skills and Feats" forum. Me too, i'll houserule this, where the first (keen or imp. critical) gives an extra 2 range and the second stacks by giving an extra multiplier on the first 2 threat range. Keen longsword crit 17-20/x2 Improved Critical longsword crit 17-20/x2 Improved Critical with keen longsword 17-18/x2, 19-20/x3 or Keen longsword crit 19-20/x3 Improved Critical longsword crit 17-20/x2 Improved Critical with keen longsword 17-18/x2, 19-20/x3 I like this, mind if I steal it. Not sure if I will, but I will present the idea to my group.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-05-06, 09:16 AM	eason is that I find it VERY cheap that a +1 weapon enhancement would render a feat useless. Erm, the feat makes keen useless, not the other way around: Since criticals don't happen on every attack, you want to have a better crit range on your primary weapon. But in DnD, you don't keep the same weapon your entire career. So either, you have to go have keen added everytime you find a better sword, or you take improved crit and have it on all your primary weapons, since keen on a weapon that you have improved crit for is meaningless and a waste of a +1 (and thus at least 6,000gp of thier character wealth)
SalParadise 07-05-06, 09:32 AM	um from a straight stats side there is no difference in weapon out put on a D8 weapon that has 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 if you keen these so it is 15-20/x2 and 19-20/x4 they are still the same and if you let IC stack so you have 12-20/x2 18-20/x4 they are still the same. you can argue that the wider crit range is wasted when you need to roll higher than the threat range to hit like needing a 15+ to hit but you threat on a 12+, thus making the wider crit range weaker... but you can also argue that the x4 is wasted when you only need x2 to drop the target. for example... here is the average expected damage of a d8 weapon that needs a 11+(50% chance) to hit the target 18+/x2 =2.5875 20/x4 = 2.5875 15+/x2 = 2.925 19+/x4 = 2.925 12+/x2 = 3.2625 18+/x4 = 3.2625 Which is wonderful for an encounter that requires 11+ to hit. When your chance to hit reduces to 25% or below, that 18-20/x4 looks a lot better... With iterative attacks (and probably TWF, which is what kukuri-wielding rogues with telling blow would likely be going for), a high AC will deal a huge blow to their damage output even if every attack IS a crit.
Kn1ves 07-05-06, 09:39 AM	Now the 3.0 version of vorpal...I can see an issue with that and crits stacking. Wasn't there some rule in the 3.0 DMG that banned Keen and Vorpal from being on the same weapon except for the Sword of Kas, which was an artifact anyway?
Crimson_Concerto 07-05-06, 02:26 PM	logic perhaps to you, but balance no way. Keen+IC is far better for a battle axe than it is for a longsword in your case 18+/x3 is better than 16+/x2 I think you mean 17+/x2 for the longsword? And those seem about the same to me if you make this adjustment, while with your 16+ typo the longsword is better. Well anyways, with the current rules, Keen and Imp. Critical, they are far better for scimitars than for a battle axe. Same thing if you allow them to stack like back in 3.0. Either way, it's better for some weapons than others, so how is this house rule any less balanced? If anything, I thought it was more underpowered than normal. Sorry, but I'm phailing to see your point. :confused:
starfire311 07-05-06, 03:18 PM	logic perhaps to you, but balance no way. Keen+IC is far better for a battle axe than it is for a longsword in your case 18+/x3 is better than 16+/x2 I think you mean 17+/x2 for the longsword? And those seem about the same to me if you make this adjustment, while with your 16+ typo the longsword is better. 1st 18+/x3 is better than 16+/x2.... 18+/x3 = 15+/x2 2nd you said in your system Keen, Improve Critical stack, and other similar miscelanious abilities stack, but instead of doubling your threat range, they simply add one to it. I took this to mean that the 1st time it worked as normal... doubling the threat range, but when you stack onmore it only increases the threat range by 1 so for a long sword it would double the threat range to 17+ for keen then increase it by 1 for IC for a 16+ if I was wrong and you guys rule that each one only increases the threat range by 1 so IC+Keen long sowrd is 17+/x2 and IC+Keen battle axe is 18+/x3 then you have ineed made the battle axe much stronger than the longsword. Well anyways, with the current rules, Keen and Imp. Critical, they are far better for scimitars than for a battle axe. Same thing if you allow them to stack like back in 3.0. this is a fallacy that has been proven wrong IC+Keen scimitar of 12+/x2 is nearly identical to IC+Keen Scythe of 18+/x4 actually the 18+/x4 can be argued to be better than the 12+/x2 i just like to call them equivalent. Either way, it's better for some weapons than others, so how is this house rule any less balanced? If anything, I thought it was more underpowered than normal. Sorry, but I'm phailing to see your point. :confused: it is imbalanced because it turns 2 weapons that were statistically the same Longsword/battle axe and nerfs the longsword to be inferior to the battle axe I would rather have the current system of keen and IC not stacking than use yours were you nerf them for the threat 19+ weapons, nerf even more for the threat 18+ weapons but leave it unchanged for the threat 20.
Zillah 07-05-06, 09:38 PM	jovar in the planar handbook. exotic 2 handed weapon. 2d6. crit x2 18-20. keen= 15-20 improved crit=12-20. some house rules say they can stack. but its a weapon from another plane. so i say if you want the weapon, find a way to get to the other plane. hehe. if you want something bad enough you can get it.
starfire311 07-05-06, 10:24 PM	jovar in the planar handbook. exotic 2 handed weapon. 2d6. crit x2 18-20. keen= 15-20 improved crit=12-20. some house rules say they can stack. but its a weapon from another plane. so i say if you want the weapon, find a way to get to the other plane. hehe. if you want something bad enough you can get it. lol, but how does your cahracter even know the weapon exists if it is on another plane.
Zillah 07-05-06, 10:58 PM	lol, but how does your cahracter even know the weapon exists if it is on another plane. its ALL about RP. a scimitar or rapier is the same crit but less damage- so i could go searching around town to see if there is a such weapon that exists. i pay a sorc/wiz to see if such a great weapon exists anywhere. and for the right price im sure i would get a good answer. then of course, if the DM is down, i would go questing for it. side quests are fun. *some old guy overhears me in town looking for a special weapon that is right for me, even though i can't find one around here. he tells me, "hey young man- i have just the thing for you" when i was a youngin i was on the plane of ysgard- one of the celestial planes. there were these gaurds that had these special weapons called jovars" * eh you get the idea. its possible
Crimson_Concerto 07-07-06, 03:11 AM	1st 18+/x3 is better than 16+/x2.... 18+/x3 = 15+/x2 2nd you said in your system I took this to mean that the 1st time it worked as normal... doubling the threat range, but when you stack onmore it only increases the threat range by 1 so for a long sword it would double the threat range to 17+ for keen then increase it by 1 for IC for a 16+ if I was wrong and you guys rule that each one only increases the threat range by 1 so IC+Keen long sowrd is 17+/x2 and IC+Keen battle axe is 18+/x3 then you have ineed made the battle axe much stronger than the longsword. this is a fallacy that has been proven wrong IC+Keen scimitar of 12+/x2 is nearly identical to IC+Keen Scythe of 18+/x4 actually the 18+/x4 can be argued to be better than the 12+/x2 i just like to call them equivalent. it is imbalanced because it turns 2 weapons that were statistically the same Longsword/battle axe and nerfs the longsword to be inferior to the battle axe I would rather have the current system of keen and IC not stacking than use yours were you nerf them for the threat 19+ weapons, nerf even more for the threat 18+ weapons but leave it unchanged for the threat 20. After redoing the math, I find that you are indeed correct on all points. :D And yeah, I agree a 12+/x2 is equal to an 18+/x4 However, while it does underpower some weapons, it makes none of them overpowered, and that's pretty much what we were shooting for when we decided to do this. Hey, you have to give up something for logic. :rolleyes:
Nom 07-07-06, 03:38 AM	After redoing the math, I find that you are indeed correct on all points. :D And yeah, I agree a 12+/x2 is equal to an 18+/x4... as far as theoretical mean damage is concerned (both are +45%). To get this number, convert the crit multiplier to an adder (x2 -> +1, x4 -> +3) and multiply by the size of the threat range (12-20 -> 9) then by 5%. The practical differences between 12-20/x2 and 18-20/x4 are quite situational.
Zillah 07-07-06, 04:37 AM	x4 don't matter. i would rather have a guarenteed hit from a 12-20. i mean thats huge even if you can't crit on the monster, you still have a hit. that is a 40 percent chance to crit EVERY time you roll. :D if there were ways to make it go down more...
Crimson_Concerto 07-07-06, 04:40 AM	x4 don't matter. i would rather have a guarenteed hit from a 12-20. i mean thats huge even if you can't crit on the monster, you still have a hit. that is a 40 percent chance to crit EVERY time you roll. :D if there were ways to make it go down more... You're only guaranteed a definite hit on a natural 20. Roll a 19 using a scimitar and you can still miss if you don't hit the opponents AC.
tui 07-07-06, 02:05 PM	I think they should be allowed to stack: reason is that I find it VERY cheap that a +1 weapon enhancement would render a feat useless. Sure, that +1 enhancement could be used for something else if you have IC. But if you have a keen weapon, you should get some kind of reward for having IC. How about if you have Improved Critical and are wielding a keen version of that weapon, you are instead treated as having Power Critical with that weapon (rather than increasing the threat range)?
Puggins 07-07-06, 06:33 PM	I don't quite see the balance problem. Comparing apples to apples, let's see what a level 8 fighter does with either a Falchion or a Greatsword. +1 freezing Greatsword vs. +1 Keen longsword in the hands of an 8th level fighter. * Both have power attack, which they'll use when appropriate. * Both have Improved Critical * Both have a strength of 20, which is reasonable at this level with items. * Both have weapon focus + weapon specialization Attack (GS): +15/+10 (2d6 + 10/17-20 + 1d6 cold) Attack (FL): +15/+10 (2d4 + 10/12-20) AC20: First attack hits 80%, second 55% GS damage: (17*0.8) + (17*0.2*0.8) + (3.5*0.8) + (17*0.55) + (17*0.2*0.55) + (3.5*0.55) = 32.23 FL damage: (15*0.8) + (15*0.45*0.8) + (15*0.55) + (15*0.45*0.55) = 31.4 The greatsword does 3% more damage with a different enchantment. And there are tons more monsters immune to criticals than monsters who have cold resistance, especially at that level. How about AC15? let's bring power attack into play by letting them take a -5 to hit. Same probabilities to hit (yes, this isn't optimal, but it favors the falcion) GS damage: (25*0.8) + (25*0.2*0.8) + (3.5*0.8) + (25*0.55) + (25*0.2*0.55) + (3.5*0.55) = 45.2 FL damage: (23*0.8) + (23*0.45*0.8) + (25*0.55) + (25*0.45*0.55) = 46.6 The falchion does 3% more damage with keen. So you have the greatsword doing slightly more damage when power attack is not involved and slightly less when power attack is heavily involved. This is not an unbalanced situation. In fact, the greatsword is the better weapon. Let's progress to 18th level, say. This is when things get tricky. What's the optimal set-up for a weapon? So many creatures have different immunities here that it's difficult to really judge apples to apples. I'm going to replace keen with impact from the psionics handbook (still in the SRD), + 1d4 damage, untyped. Again, this favors the falchion. +5 holy impact Greatsword versus +5 holy keen Falchion Assuming 26 Strength, Greater weapon focus, Greater weapon Specialization Attack (GS) : +33/+28/+23/+18 (2d6 + 21/17-20 + 1d4 + 2d6) Attack (FL) : +33/+28/+23/+18 (2d4 + 21/12-20 + 2d6) Against an AC30: GS: (37.5*0.95) + (28*0.2*0.95) + (37.5*0.95) + (28*0.2*0.95) + (37.5*0.70) + (28*0.2*0.70) + (37.5*0.45) + (28*0.2*0.45) = 131.5 FL: (33*0.95) + (26*0.45*0.95) + (33*0.95) + (26*0.45*0.95) + (33*0.70) + (26*0.45*0.70) + (33*0.45) + (26*0.45*0.45) = 136.4 The Falchion does 4% more damage. It'll do more damage when power attack is taken into account for lower Armor Classes, but I don't feel like doing the calculations again. It won't hit +10%. Sorry guys, I don't see the balance problem. Doing 4% more damage just proves that keen is a better choice of weapon bonus than impact- what a surprise. In fact, I'm rather disappointed that the difference is only 4%- that means you might be able to find a +1 trait that is still better than keen at 18th level, even when keen stacks. I was mildly considering letting them stack in my next campaign. This math pretty much convinces me that I shouldn't have any worries about allowing it.
Bikermattus 07-07-06, 07:28 PM	I think I might have an alternate solution to the stacking crit/automatic hit problem... When you threaten and fail to hit normal AC, apply a penalty equal to twice the missed ammount. Threats that roll naturally at or below this margin miss entirely. Threats that miss the AC by less than this margin fail to crit. Example: I have a 5th level fighter with an attack of +9 with my Keen Bladed Gauntlet that I purchased Improved Critical for. I attack a monster with AC 22. Now, my threat range is 9-20 with these babies, but the roll would normally need to be 13 to hit. If I roll a 13, my threat roll would be unmodified, confirming with another 13. If I roll an 11, my threat roll would be penalized by 4, requiring a 17 to crit, and if I don't roll at least a 5, I miss. If I roll a 9, my threat roll would be penalized by 8, making it impossible to crit, and requiring me to roll another 9 just to hit. This makes sense from the perspective that, just like Strength allows more fine-tuned control (and therefore better chances to hit), Keen and Improved Critical both (in different fashions) allow for training to be more accurate from a weapon that is more accurate in your hands (which is what both properties do). This also allows for the idea of hitting "impossinble" ACs, without saying that a natural 20 automatically hits (average joes do NOT have a 5% chance to hit Jet Li!:nonono: )
Nom 07-09-06, 08:25 AM	I think I might have an alternate solution to the stacking crit/automatic hit problem... When you threaten and fail to hit normal AC, apply a penalty equal to twice the missed ammount. Threats that roll naturally at or below this margin miss entirely. Threats that miss the AC by less than this margin fail to crit.Wouldn't it make more sense to say that if you roll within the threat range but miss the AC you may attempt another roll, and if you hit on the second roll you hit normally? It seems silly to give a chance of critting on a roll that doesn't even hit.
Mystyc 07-09-06, 11:49 AM	Wouldn't it make more sense to say that if you roll within the threat range but miss the AC you may attempt another roll, and if you hit on the second roll you hit normally? It seems silly to give a chance of critting on a roll that doesn't even hit. Or how about it's just a miss, like the rules say it is?
Wonton2006 07-09-06, 05:16 PM	x4 don't matter. i would rather have a guarenteed hit from a 12-20. i mean thats huge even if you can't crit on the monster, you still have a hit. that is a 40 percent chance to crit EVERY time you roll. :D if there were ways to make it go down more... This is probably the most common misconception in D&D. You only hit on a natural 20. Also, you did your math wrong. You have a chance to crit on 45% of your rolls, not 40, though, by chance to crit, I mean 1) you won't always hit on a 12 and 2) there's still the confirmation roll
Mystyc 07-09-06, 05:23 PM	This is probably the most common misconception in D&D. Second most. First is when people think that skill checks auto-succeed on 20 and auto-fail on 1.
Nom 07-09-06, 09:04 PM	Or how about it's just a miss, like the rules say it is?He's proposing an alternate rule to deal with a specific situation. I'm critiquing that rule. If you have nothing to add, it's usually better to add nothing. Helpfully telling me that something labelled 'alternate rule' is a house rule (well, duh) only serves to confuse others. On the other hand, if you can see significant 'unintended consequences' for either the original proposal or my proposed modification (ie have something useful to say), feel free to contribute.
Mystyc 07-09-06, 09:11 PM	He's proposing an alternate rule to deal with a specific situation. I'm critiquing that rule. If you have nothing to add, it's usually better to add nothing. Helpfully telling me that something labelled 'alternate rule' is a house rule (well, duh) only serves to confuse others. On the other hand, if you can see significant 'unintended consequences' for either the original proposal or my proposed modification (ie have something useful to say), feel free to contribute. I'm not sure it does confuse others, but that's not important. The "unintended consequences" were implied. This alternate rule means that increased crit threat range = increased hit %. Non-hit crit threats now have a chance to hit anyway. I would say that these two traits should remain separate. Has anyone checked the numbers on how much accuracy is gained on a high-threat weapon like a falchion over a normal greatsword?
clannagh 07-09-06, 09:31 PM	I'm not sure it does confuse others, but that's not important. The "unintended consequences" were implied. This alternate rule means that increased crit threat range = increased hit %. Non-hit crit threats now have a chance to hit anyway. I would say that these two traits should remain separate. Has anyone checked the numbers on how much accuracy is gained on a high-threat weapon like a falchion over a normal greatsword? When you are comparing something like a great falchion (Sandstorm D12 18-20 x2) with a great sword (PHB 2D6 19-20 x2) the amount of two handed strength damage and power attack used will come into it. For a low strength character with no power attack the reliable hits of the greatsword would be significant but at some point as strength goes up there will be a crossover where the great falchion is more effective.
Nom 07-10-06, 12:46 AM	The actual maths isn't hard, and the benefit is quite small. Let's leave out IC for the moment, and just consider a greatsword (19-20/x2). The rule only kicks in if you need a 20 to hit and roll a 19, and then only if you roll a 20 on the reroll. So the total benefit is to grant one extra (non-critical) hit every 400 rolls at to-hit of 20. What if we consider an IC rapier with 15-20/x2. The rule only kicks in if we need to roll in the 16-20 range to score a hit. Given that we do, the best case is needing a natural 20. In that case, rolling any of 15-19 (25% chance) entitles us to another attempt (5% chance of success). This will occur about 1.25% of the time. If we needed, say, 18 to hit, then we would earn a reroll on 15-17 (15%) and get success on 18-20 (15%), resulting in a net increase of 2.25%. Conclusion: the marginal yields are very small. It does, however, grant high-range weapons some ability to play catch-up with high-multiplier weapons at high to-hit numbers.
Mystyc 07-10-06, 12:52 AM	The actual maths isn't hard, and the benefit is quite small. Remember, he's allowing full crit-enhancement stacking. His example was a weapon that eventually crits on 9-20. His numbers make it look like it's about a 10-15% increase in accuracy against an enemy you need a 13 to hit.
MindWandererB 07-10-06, 01:06 AM	Ahh, the old debate continues. Let me point out that the "mathematical proof" that stacking them is balanced relies on leaving out most of the increases. The higher your bonuses--Str, Power Attack, enhancement, etc.--the more important the threat range. Sean K. Reynolds obscures the issue by omitting these, saying "they would only help the other guy more." Wrong. Compare the rapier to the longsword, for the simplest comparison. By level 20, a warrior-type is doing something like +14 damage on an attack--and that's a conservative estimate. The longsword user does an average of one point of damage more without a crit. The rapier user has a 5% greater chance of doubling the whole bloody thing. That's better even without threat increasers--10% greater chance with one multiplier, 15% with two. With the ability to threaten on a 12, and the master crit-er is doing an extra +16 damage or so most of the time. I tried using rules similar to the proposed ones about stacking, where each extra multiplier adds +1 to the threat range. It's a decent nerf for the rapier and falchion, but when you get to the pick and scythe, it falls apart. (And I don't know about your campaigns, but when the hands-down best weapon in the game is a scythe, I think I'm doing something wrong. This is D&D, not Harvest Moon or Death Jr.)
Bikermattus 07-13-06, 07:28 PM	The actual maths isn't hard, and the benefit is quite small. Let's leave out IC for the moment, and just consider a greatsword (19-20/x2). The rule only kicks in if you need a 20 to hit and roll a 19, and then only if you roll a 20 on the reroll. So the total benefit is to grant one extra (non-critical) hit every 400 rolls at to-hit of 20. What if we consider an IC rapier with 15-20/x2. The rule only kicks in if we need to roll in the 16-20 range to score a hit. Given that we do, the best case is needing a natural 20. In that case, rolling any of 15-19 (25% chance) entitles us to another attempt (5% chance of success). This will occur about 1.25% of the time. If we needed, say, 18 to hit, then we would earn a reroll on 15-17 (15%) and get success on 18-20 (15%), resulting in a net increase of 2.25%. Conclusion: the marginal yields are very small. It does, however, grant high-range weapons some ability to play catch-up with high-multiplier weapons at high to-hit numbers. That's exactly what I was going for, except for the math being slightly off... In example 1, if you need a 20 to hit, it's impossible to crit with a 19 (still in threat), and you'd still miss in that instance with anything less than a 20 on the backup roll. (+1/4% chance to hit, no crit) In example 2, part A, you'd need to make the original hit to make the back-up a normal hit, rather than a miss (so a 20's still needed to hit). Part B, rolling a 17 gives a 10% chance to get a normal, and a 5% chance to crit, and a solid 15% for each of 15 and 16 to hit, with no crit chance (+1/4% crit chance, +2% chance for normal hit) The catch-up bit is what I figured would be most effective for balancing the near-extreme points. Sorry if I forgot to mention it was a house rule, but that's what Unearthed Arcana is... The Big Book of House Rules :D
Bikermattus 07-13-06, 07:32 PM	Ahh, the old debate continues. Let me point out that the "mathematical proof" that stacking them is balanced relies on leaving out most of the increases. The higher your bonuses--Str, Power Attack, enhancement, etc.--the more important the threat range. Sean K. Reynolds obscures the issue by omitting these, saying "they would only help the other guy more." Wrong. Compare the rapier to the longsword, for the simplest comparison. By level 20, a warrior-type is doing something like +14 damage on an attack--and that's a conservative estimate. The longsword user does an average of one point of damage more without a crit. The rapier user has a 5% greater chance of doubling the whole bloody thing. That's better even without threat increasers--10% greater chance with one multiplier, 15% with two. With the ability to threaten on a 12, and the master crit-er is doing an extra +16 damage or so most of the time. I tried using rules similar to the proposed ones about stacking, where each extra multiplier adds +1 to the threat range. It's a decent nerf for the rapier and falchion, but when you get to the pick and scythe, it falls apart. (And I don't know about your campaigns, but when the hands-down best weapon in the game is a scythe, I think I'm doing something wrong. This is D&D, not Harvest Moon or Death Jr.) Are you factoring in the fact that ONLY the damage dice are multiplied?