# So a Keen Rapier Crits on....



## Chairman7w (Dec 5, 2005)

So a Keen Rapier Crits on....   16-20?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2005)

Chairman7w said:
			
		

> So a Keen Rapier Crits on....   16-20?




15-20 actually.

The normal critical threat range for a rapier is 18-20, or 3 digits. The _keen_ enhancement (or the Improved Critical feat) doubles this to six digits, or 15-20 (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 is six numbers).


----------



## Chairman7w (Dec 5, 2005)

Thank you Storm Raven!  (cool name!)



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> 15-20 actually.
> 
> The normal critical threat range for a rapier is 18-20, or 3 digits. The _keen_ enhancement (or the Improved Critical feat) doubles this to six digits, or 15-20 (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 is six numbers).


----------



## Cabral (Dec 5, 2005)

And with Improved Critical, it threatens on a 12-20. 

Note the destinction between threaten a critical and confirming one. If your natural roll is one of the numbers in the threaten range and the modified roll would hit, roll again and if the new roll plus modifers would hit the target, then it's a critical. If the second roll would not hit the target, then it's just a hit. (If you knew that already, just making sure )


----------



## billd91 (Dec 5, 2005)

Cabral said:
			
		

> And with Improved Critical, it threatens on a 12-20.
> 
> Note the destinction between threaten a critical and confirming one. If your natural roll is one of the numbers in the threaten range and the modified roll would hit, roll again and if the new roll plus modifers would hit the target, then it's a critical. If the second roll would not hit the target, then it's just a hit. (If you knew that already, just making sure )




Note: That's in 3.0. In 3.5, keen does not stack with improved critical.


----------



## Chairman7w (Dec 5, 2005)

No, that's incorrect.  The Keen Benefit does NOT stack with Improved Critical.



			
				Cabral said:
			
		

> And with Improved Critical, it threatens on a 12-20.
> 
> Note the destinction between threaten a critical and confirming one. If your natural roll is one of the numbers in the threaten range and the modified roll would hit, roll again and if the new roll plus modifers would hit the target, then it's a critical. If the second roll would not hit the target, then it's just a hit. (If you knew that already, just making sure )


----------



## atom crash (Dec 5, 2005)

> And with Improved Critical, it threatens on a 12-20.




This is only the case if you house rule that Keen and Improved Critical stack. The rules dictate that they *do not* stack.



> Improved Critical [General]
> 
> Prerequisite
> Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
> ...




Edit: D'oh. Nothing new to add. So, technically a keen rapier *threatens a critical* on a 15-20. Then you roll to confirm.


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 5, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Note: That's in 3.0. In 3.5, keen does not stack with improved critical.



My question is, why shouldn't it?  They have all sorts of other over-the-top cinematic weapon/feat combinations, why not this one?  There are easy remedies to ensure this isn't overly abused, and it does make for a fun encounter.  Since I am still playing 3.0 I am going to allow it.  Heck, the last game session we talked about just this sort of thing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2005)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> My question is, why shouldn't it?  They have all sorts of other over-the-top cinematic weapon/feat combinations, why not this one?  There are easy remedies to ensure this isn't overly abused, and it does make for a fun encounter.  Since I am still playing 3.0 I am going to allow it.  Heck, the last game session we talked about just this sort of thing.




There is no game balance reason. The reason given by the primary designer of the 3.5 revision is that allowing the two to stack made critical hits less "special". I generally think that the fact that the combination requires a +8 BAB, a feat, and at least +2 worth of magical enhancements is more than enough to keep critical hits "special". In my campaign, I allow the two to stack as a house rule.


----------



## rbrt_spade (Dec 5, 2005)

Im a 3.0 player and personaly I think that they should stack. The most I have ever added up for ranges is that you have on a hit is a 25% chance for a crit. But with some of the prcs that add more to the weapns threat range, it can be broken.


----------



## atom crash (Dec 5, 2005)

For what it's worth, here is Sean K Reynolds' rant on the topic.


----------



## Tarangil (Dec 5, 2005)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> My question is, why shouldn't it?  They have all sorts of other over-the-top cinematic weapon/feat combinations, why not this one?  There are easy remedies to ensure this isn't overly abused, and it does make for a fun encounter.  Since I am still playing 3.0 I am going to allow it.  Heck, the last game session we talked about just this sort of thing.




I think the reason why they omitted the Stacking thing is that other players were using other keen enableing abilities to add to the stacking, such as psionic effects and such.  A player I knew tinkered with all the possibilities so his rapier would crit on a 5-20, I can't remember exactly what he used but it was nasty.

Personally I may allow the feat to be used in conjunction with keen items, but no other effect (magic, psionic, etc...) can stack.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 5, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> This is only the case if you house rule that Keen and Improved Critical stack. The rules dictate that they *do not* stack.



D'oh. Forgot about that. ... but yeah, I house rule it that way.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 5, 2005)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> My question is, why shouldn't it?  They have all sorts of other over-the-top cinematic weapon/feat combinations, why not this one?  There are easy remedies to ensure this isn't overly abused, and it does make for a fun encounter.  Since I am still playing 3.0 I am going to allow it.  Heck, the last game session we talked about just this sort of thing.



 If you're playing 3.0, of course you'll allow it.  Otherwise, you'd be playing 3.5.   

Seriously, though, there have been huge arguments for/against it.  There are two main considerations for this and a third, lesser consideration.  The third is simple, so I'll mention that first.  If you have a any weapon abilities or PrC abilities that use crit threats to activate, then stacking improved critical (IC) and keen is a HUGE deal.  The de facto case in point illustrating why this is a bad idea is the 3.0 vorpal ability.  However, the 3.5 vorpal ability changes things drastically.  The two other considerations are as follows:

Average Damage Output (ADO): It's a provably fact to some degree that keen and IC need to stack in order to maintain the ADO across weapons.  For a much longer treatise on this, I refer you to Sean K. Reynold's rant on the subject.
Randomness: When a crit happens, it's usually a big deal.  Sometimes it's not, but most times it is.  Consider a raging barbarian with a greataxe as the extreme example.  He'll do A LOT of damage on a critical and increasing the chances of that may not significantly increase the ADO, but it does change the flow of the campaign.  When you plan for BBEG to handle "one more attack" a timely crit threat could change things.  IMO, it's much worse for the heroes when a single crit by the bad guy could put a wizard from full health to dead in a single hit.
 The fact is that the number of situations in which #2 comes up are rare, so it's not a bad idea to let them stack.

Edit: I take a short break mid-post to answer a work-related question and 50 people preempt me, even giving the same link!  Sheesh!


----------



## Cabral (Dec 5, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Edit: I take a short break mid-post to answer a work-related question and 50 people preempt me, even giving the same link!  Sheesh!



That's what you get for letting work interfere with posting


----------



## billd91 (Dec 5, 2005)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> My question is, why shouldn't it?  They have all sorts of other over-the-top cinematic weapon/feat combinations, why not this one?  There are easy remedies to ensure this isn't overly abused, and it does make for a fun encounter.  Since I am still playing 3.0 I am going to allow it.  Heck, the last game session we talked about just this sort of thing.




Even if there's some math out there saying that letting them stack is no big deal based on average damage, it _feels_ wrong to me to let a weapon threaten 45% of the time you swing it (assuming it hits). 
Also, stacking the two with a falchion and power attack starts to get a little crazier. It's not particularly outlandish, but neither is disallowing the abilities to stack. And that kind of leaves you with the _feel_ of the game.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 5, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, here is Sean K Reynolds' rant on the topic.



His rants are always fun to read, but one place made me raise my eyebrows:



			
				skr said:
			
		

> And if he crits, he does an extra d6. Woohoo.
> 
> 
> So maybe letting keen and Improved Critical means crits come up a lot more often. Maybe that makes crits a little less special. But we're talking about crits that are an extra weapon die of damage ... we're not talking about Arduin-style crits that do 1d100 damage, or sever limbs, or do instant-kills ... it's just another d6 or d8. They're not that special in the first place. And as established above, the weapons that crit more often need those crits to keep up with standard-crit-range weapons, otherwise there's no real point in choosing those high-threat weapons.



Huh?  Assuming we're still talking about that +3 keen rapier wielded by a fighter with a 20 str, we're talking a base of 1d6+8 points of damage, or an average of 11.5 points of extra damage per crit.  If it's a falchion, then we're talking 2d4+10, or an extra 15 points of damage per hit.  If our friendly fighter has power attack, it gets progressively more.  And if a spell like prayer is in effect, that likewise gets doubled.  And so forth.

I think it's fine for the two to stack, but his analysis really fell apart for me at that "extra 1d6" business.

Daniel


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 5, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I think it's fine for the two to stack, but his analysis really fell apart for me at that "extra 1d6" business.
> 
> Daniel



 Did you follow to the second page, specifically the Table 2?  That's a little more directly illustrative.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 5, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I think it's fine for the two to stack, but his analysis really fell apart for me at that "extra 1d6" business.




I seem to recall Monte providing commentary to that rant at one point.  From memory, the character SKR was playing in 3E was a rogue, most of whose damage came from sneak attack, not constant bonuses.  So his criticals pretty much _did_ just add the base damage of the rapier.

His reaction to the change seems to have been more on the basis of how that rogue was affected, rather than a raging Power-Attacking barbarian with a Flaming Burst falchion and a Belt of Giant Strength.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 5, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> His reaction to the change seems to have been more on the basis of how that rogue was affected, rather than a raging Power-Attacking barbarian with a Flaming Burst falchion and a Belt of Giant Strength.



Dude shouldn't be going flaming burst if he's going keen route:  put those points into +2 additional on the weapon, power attack for an additional +2, and add an average of 6 points of damage to each hit before crits are taken into account .

Daniel


----------



## Wish (Dec 6, 2005)

The big reason why they shouldn't stack is to cut down on certain abilities that trigger only off a critical hit, especially vorpal.  A 3.0 weapon master with a keen vorpal falchion had a roughly 50% chance of taking your head with every swing, unless you had a superior armor class.  With vorpal changed in 3.5, there's not much of a game balance reason.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Dude shouldn't be going flaming burst if he's going keen route:  put those points into +2 additional on the weapon, power attack for an additional +2, and add an average of 6 points of damage to each hit before crits are taken into account .




We tried telling him that.  He just said "Thog like burny sword!"

You can try explaining that it's best to take his burny sword away if you like.  I'll be over _there_.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dakhran the Dark (Dec 6, 2005)

I still have nightmares about the fellow player with a +1 keen thundering shocking burst falchion.  Crit on 15-20, crits do 4d4+1d10+1d8+2+(3*STR).  I can't imagine what that would be like if keen and improved crit stacked, especially if he swapped the falchion out for a scythe, doing 8d4+3d10+3d8+4+(6*STR) on 18-20...and then became a weapon master...


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 6, 2005)

Also keep in mind its still only an autohit on a 20. If you have a 5-20 crit range, just because you rolled a 5 doesn't mean its a crit threat. That 5 has to be a hit to count.

So if your range is 12-20 for example and his AC is 20. You have a +7. On a 12, that's a 19. You don't hit, so its not even a crit threat.


----------



## Chairman7w (Dec 6, 2005)

Aaaahhh, good point.  I hadn't even considered that!   :\ 



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind its still only an autohit on a 20. If you have a 5-20 crit range, just because you rolled a 5 doesn't mean its a crit threat. That 5 has to be a hit to count.
> 
> So if your range is 12-20 for example and his AC is 20. You have a +7. On a 12, that's a 19. You don't hit, so its not even a crit threat.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 6, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind its still only an autohit on a 20. If you have a 5-20 crit range, just because you rolled a 5 doesn't mean its a crit threat. That 5 has to be a hit to count.
> 
> So if your range is 12-20 for example and his AC is 20. You have a +7. On a 12, that's a 19. You don't hit, so its not even a crit threat.




Right which means in 3.0 that every hit was a crit to threat in many cases.  It made it too easy, there should be a middle ground between hitting and threat to crit.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 6, 2005)

That is a good point Crothian. It does strike me as poor design for a miss/hit/crit sub-system to be replaced by a miss/crit sub-system, given the 12+ crit is so close to the expected hit % for a stock pc vs an equal CR foe.


----------



## argo (Dec 6, 2005)

Dakhran the Dark said:
			
		

> I still have nightmares about the fellow player with a +1 keen thundering shocking burst falchion.  Crit on 15-20, crits do 4d4+1d10+1d8+2+(3*STR).  I can't imagine what that would be like if keen and improved crit stacked, especially if he swapped the falchion out for a scythe, doing 8d4+3d10+3d8+4+(6*STR) on 18-20...and then became a weapon master...



You know, seems like most people don't have a problem with keen+Improved Crit stacking when we are talking about the guy dual-wielding kukris, or the rapier wielder, or heck even the power attacking greatsword weilder usually gets a pass.   And with good reason, none of those builds break the game.  Ah, but the falchion, the falchion, that always comes up in this one discussion.  I'm convinced that Andy Collins must have had some nightmare player who used a falchion in his game.  That one combination of a weapon and the right feats seems to put the fear of god in a lot of folk ....

.... which is of course why the only logical course of action is to leave the stats of the falchion alone and nuter the keen+Improved Crit combo...  :\ 


I mean really, I do think that 3.5 is an improvement on the 3.0 rules but seriously, there are a few of the changes that really seem to be a case of trying to fix a single broken combo by nutering not the least common part of the combo but the most common part.  Like trying to fix the nastyness that was 3.0 Archmage-with-spelcasting-prodigy by nutering the Spell Focus feat ....


----------



## argo (Dec 6, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> That is a good point Crothian. It does strike me as poor design for a miss/hit/crit sub-system to be replaced by a miss/crit sub-system, given the 12+ crit is so close to the expected hit % for a stock pc vs an equal CR foe.



I understand yours and Crothian's point.  However there is also the alternative point of view that having a high-level warrior (Improved Crit has a preq of BAB +8) whose every successful hit is a threat is a good mechanical way to represent a "weaponmaster" type character.  In other words what is the in-game, descriptive difference between how a 1st level guy fights and how an 8th level guy fights?  The 1st level guy trys to ram his sword into your guts as hard as he can, the 8th level guy opens your jugular vein with a flick of his wrist.


Not saying that that is the only way to look at things.  Just that looking at things in that way makes the "every successful hit is a threat" issue not seem so out-of-place.

Later.


----------



## Lazybones (Dec 6, 2005)

Don't forget that in 3.5e you get the added benefit of either a free feat (if you have a keen weapon) or an extra +1 of weapon power (if you have Imp.Crit). 

I have a player with a 3.0 weaponmaster(rapier) in my current NWN group, and he whips out an obsene amount of damage with his crit-on-12+ attacks. Of course,  he's set up to have high damage bonuses through moderate strength (with a long-lasting 3.0 Bull's Strength) and a +5 courtesy of the wizard's Greater Magic Weapon (again, before they nerfed that spell somewhat in 3.5). I have to admit I also first though of the falchion when I started reading this thread, especially with the 2x on 2H Power Attacks in 3.5e. I am sure SKR's analysis is accurate but a high-level falchion-weilder (given than in 3.5e AC almost never keeps up with AB in the higher levels, or at least as far as I've seen) can almost always PA for some _serious_ damage on a crit.


----------



## Parlan (Dec 6, 2005)

argo said:
			
		

> You know, seems like most people don't have a problem with keen+Improved Crit stacking when we are talking about the guy dual-wielding kukris, or the rapier wielder, or heck even the power attacking greatsword weilder usually gets a pass.   And with good reason, none of those builds break the game.  Ah, but the falchion, the falchion, that always comes up in this one discussion.  I'm convinced that Andy Collins must have had some nightmare player who used a falchion in his game.  That one combination of a weapon and the right feats seems to put the fear of god in a lot of folk ....
> 
> .... which is of course why the only logical course of action is to leave the stats of the falchion alone and nuter the keen+Improved Crit combo...  :\




But by the time you qualify for the feat and have a belt of giant strength and a +6 weapon, many of your opponents will be immune to critical hits.  It doesn't seem that broken to me.  


Altho nce biten, twice shy.  I've never played with a PC tricked out like this


----------



## argo (Dec 6, 2005)

Parlan, perhaps I was too subtle.  I _like_ the keen+Improved Crit combo, it was the first thing I houseruled back into my game after 3.5 came out.  My earlier post was meant as a criticism of Andy Collins's warped logic that the best way to "fix" a "broken" combo is to nuter the part of the combo that affects the most number builds instead of the part the affects the least number of builds.  RE: the changes to keen+improved crit and Spell Focus.

I don't happen to believe that the falchion combo is broken.  But if I did and I wanted to fix it I would remove the falchion itself from the game long before I made every rapier-wielding duelist in the game cry by nutering their bread-and-butter combo.

Later.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 6, 2005)

argo said:
			
		

> In other words what is the in-game, descriptive difference between how a 1st level guy fights and how an 8th level guy fights?  The 1st level guy trys to ram his sword into your guts as hard as he can, the 8th level guy opens your jugular vein with a flick of his wrist.



I'd imagine that the opponants hps are the most important dynamic in the action sequence, after all a 50hp foe losing 10hps is less dramatic than if they had 20hps. I'm not a martial artist myself but I figure that watching a duel would be like watching rugby, the rubbish fighter is exposed by the better fighter that executes the basic maneauvers with sharper precision, pace & power (i.e. pressure). The 1st level fighter may well look skilled to the untrained observer & indeed is when compared to a non-proficient commoner.


----------



## DungeonMaster (Dec 6, 2005)

Wish said:
			
		

> The big reason why they shouldn't stack is to cut down on certain abilities that trigger only off a critical hit, especially vorpal.  A 3.0 weapon master with a keen vorpal falchion had a roughly 50% chance of taking your head with every swing, unless you had a superior armor class.  With vorpal changed in 3.5, there's not much of a game balance reason.




Honestly vorpal in 3.5 is the most crappy ability in the game for it's price, it's the worst vorpal in the history of the game as well. 
The problem isn't with improved critical and keen stacking, it's with non-core 3rd edition rules. The best you can get is a 12-20 in the plain core 3rd edition rules, using scimitar or falchion. 
It's the same thing with 3.5 power attack, the best you can get is 2-1. The non-core rules took this way over the top to absurd ratios with feats like shock trooper, leap attack, momentum swing and prestige classes like frezied berzerker and so forth. 

I've run games with high level warriors with powerful vorpal weapons and their comment is always: "It's only fair, the wizards and clerics can kill with one spell". 
And I agree, well chosen spells can kill/dominate/trap-the-soul/imprison with equal efficiency to a vorpal weilding warrior under the plain rules.
Remember you have to confirm the hit, and even if you do hit the target's AC on a 12, you have to roll again. If 12 is the cut-off to hit the thing you're looking at 0.45*0.45 or ~20% chance to lop the head off in one blow. Most spells have much better kill ratio. 
Give the warriors their super weapon. It's only fair.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 6, 2005)

Err, you're talking about 3.0 vorpal eh? The 3.5 vorpal activates only on a natural twenty making keen irrelevant.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 6, 2005)

In 3.0 I made a bad guy with a threat range of (iirc) 6-20... and if he _didn't_ crit, he could call maximum damage!



My players, don't look, please.  Axon and Axel

[edit]idrc.  It was 7-20.[/edit]


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 6, 2005)

Dakhran the Dark said:
			
		

> I still have nightmares about the fellow player with a +1 keen thundering shocking burst falchion.  Crit on 15-20, crits do 4d4+1d10+1d8+2+(3*STR).  I can't imagine what that would be like if keen and improved crit stacked, especially if he swapped the falchion out for a scythe, doing 8d4+3d10+3d8+4+(6*STR) on 18-20...and then became a weapon master...




You are bothered by the combat effectiveness of a player who has invested in a 50,000 gp weapon that is only truly effective less than one-quarter of the time? If he does not get a critical hit, your falchion wielder's damage output goes down to 2d4+1d6+1+(1.5*str) - not that impressive for a 50,000 gp investment. Given that his threat range is only a quarter of the d20, and he won't confirm all threats as critical hits, and you should fight a reasonable number of opponents who are immune to critical hits (undead, constructs, plants, oozes, and elementals), his ability is less than impressive.

The scythe wielder is even more hampered, because the threat range of the scythe is so small. He can get a big bang every now and then, but it is relatively rare that it will happen.

I just don't see the problem here.


----------



## Patlin (Dec 6, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> His rants are always fun to read, but one place made me raise my eyebrows:
> 
> 
> Huh?  Assuming we're still talking about that +3 keen rapier wielded by a fighter with a 20 str, we're talking a base of 1d6+8 points of damage, or an average of 11.5 points of extra damage per crit.  If it's a falchion, then we're talking 2d4+10, or an extra 15 points of damage per hit.  If our friendly fighter has power attack, it gets progressively more.  And if a spell like prayer is in effect, that likewise gets doubled.  And so forth.




My psychic warrior loves his falchion, whether or not keen stacks.  Sure, under 3.5 he won't want the keen enchantment, but there are plenty of other enchantments that work fine.  Between psionic lions charge and another power that gives an insight bonus to damage, he has a lot of bonus damage not expressed as extra dice.  All of that is doubled on a critical hit.

Once your damage bonus gets high enough, you'd be crazy to go with a greatsword over a falchion.  The difference between 2d4+20 and 2d6+20 is trivial, 4d4+40 and 4d6+40 even more so.  Getting 4d4+40 about 10% of the time (on some monsters) instead of 2d6+20 is a lot more important to me, personally.  If I'm really desperate, that can get closer to +30 that +20 as well...


----------



## Tarangil (Dec 6, 2005)

Dakhran the Dark said:
			
		

> ...a scythe, doing 8d4+3d10+3d8+4+(6*STR) on 18-20...and then became a weapon master...




 I want one of those, where can I get one!!!


----------



## werk (Dec 6, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind its still only an autohit on a 20. If you have a 5-20 crit range, just because you rolled a 5 doesn't mean its a crit threat. That 5 has to be a hit to count.



Thank you voice of reason!  You must land both rolls to score a critical hit.

Critical threat range is not insta-crit unless you house rule that too.  

I played this once in 3.0, insta-crit, any crit threat was a critical hit...needless to say we all had imp. crit, keen weapons, and it was very unbalancing IMO.  Lot of fun until the DM would roll high, then you die.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 6, 2005)

Of course, a middle ground in all this hoopla is to state the following:

Imp. Critical and keen effects stack, but no weapon may have a critical threat range greater than 15-20.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Of course, a middle ground in all this hoopla is to state the following:
> 
> Imp. Critical and keen effects stack, but no weapon may have a critical threat range greater than 15-20.




That heavily favours axes, picks, and scythes.

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Dec 6, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That heavily favours axes, picks, and scythes.
> 
> -Hyp.



 Yup, and they are already favoured by the stacking due to the fact that 18-20/x4 is exactly equivalent to 12-20/x2, but only if all those numbers hit the enemy.  Since 18 is much more likely to hit than 12, the /x4 weapon has a built-in advantage in most situations.


----------



## argo (Dec 7, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> I'd imagine that the opponants hps are the most important dynamic in the action sequence, after all a 50hp foe losing 10hps is less dramatic than if they had 20hps. I'm not a martial artist myself but I figure that watching a duel would be like watching rugby, the rubbish fighter is exposed by the better fighter that executes the basic maneauvers with sharper precision, pace & power (i.e. pressure). The 1st level fighter may well look skilled to the untrained observer & indeed is when compared to a non-proficient commoner.



Oh, your quite right that there are a lot of dynamics.  My point was simply that I do not see anything _inherently_ wrong with the "only-a-miss-or-a-threat" dynamic of the 12-20 crit range.  Becuase there is a simple, logical and flavorful in-game explination for why a fighter can land nothing but misses and threats.

Later.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 7, 2005)

I'm not sure I'd say it is inherantly wrong, but in the miss/crit scenario the word "critical" hit is rather misleading when criticals occur so frequently.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Dec 7, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd say it is inherantly wrong, but in the miss/crit scenario the word "critical" hit is rather misleading when criticals occur so frequently.



 It's still critical, but the warrior is good at striking consistent critical blows, like the Rogue, who can strike a vital spot 100% of the time and Sneak Attack while flanking.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 7, 2005)

Well there is a bit of difficulty describing the critical hit with a hp system. A 20hp fighter hit for 30 damage could be described as being decapitated which surely you'd agree is a critical hit from an observers opinion. Then we've got the 20hp fighter being critically hit for 10pts which could be described as a nasty but not lethal slash to the throat. It is all a bit difficult describing critical hits without taking the current (& even the maximum) hps into the equation.

I sure would have gotten irritated with a constant stream of standard "critical" hits from a 12+ threat that I would not refer to them as criticals at all. Actually, it never came to this back in the day, but I'd ask the player to simply work out a flat bonus. Off hand it's something like 10% for martial weapons but I'd have to crunch the numbers.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 7, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd say it is inherantly wrong, but in the miss/crit scenario the word "critical" hit is rather misleading when criticals occur so frequently.




Really? Is there something in the definition of the word "critical" that mandates rarity?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Really? Is there something in the definition of the word "critical" that mandates rarity?



 Well, the definition uses the word "event" which does allude to some idea of rarity.  The fact that the default threat range is only a 20 could also signify rarity.  So, FreeTheSlaves has rules-based reasons to make that statement.


			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> A 20hp fighter hit for 30 damage could be described as being decapitated...



Actually, no it couldn't be described as such.  This supposed flavor description creates a HUGE change in game.  Suddenly, the fighter cannot be raised from the dead, he must be resurrected.  That's a significant difference.  Only use such descriptions on NPCs or monsters that you know will not be raised.  If you use this on a PC and don't also houserule raised dead, you're creating a world of difference for the player.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 7, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Well, the definition uses the word "event" which does allude to some idea of rarity.




I'm still not following this logic. The word "event" now means rare?



> _The fact that the default threat range is only a 20 could also signify rarity.  So, FreeTheSlaves has rules-based reasons to make that statement._





Except that the threat range can be expanded, even under the 3.5e rules, which means it isn't quite that rare. And many weapons have a larger threat range than 20 to begin with to boot.

I'm just not seeing where the word "critical" in critical hit necessarily mandates "rare".


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm still not following this logic. The word "event" now means rare?



 Only because you choose not to.  The word "event" can mean "A significant occurrence or happening." It's perfectly logical to conclude that if something happens so frequently, it is no longer significant.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm just not seeing where the word "critical" in critical hit necessarily mandates "rare".



 I'm not seeing where you come up with the idea that anyone's mandating anything.  What exactly is your purpose in bringing this up?  Are you looking for some clarification or perhaps to avoid confusion for other people?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 7, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Only because you choose not to.  The word "event" can mean "A significant occurrence or happening." It's perfectly logical to conclude that if something happens so frequently, it is no longer significant.




"Significant" does not mean rare. Of course, the primary definition of "event" is "something that takes place". Except for the one you selected (which doesn't really translate into "rare" except under a tortured reading of "significant", which is in no way even implied by the definition of _that_ word) none of the definitions of the word "event" have any implication of rarity.



> _I'm not seeing where you come up with the idea that anyone's mandating anything.  What exactly is your purpose in bringing this up?  Are you looking for some clarification or perhaps to avoid confusion for other people?_





It has been theorized that the word "critical" in critical hit denotes rarity. And that having large critical threat ranges are thus contrary to the meaning of "critical hit". That is hogwash. Critical in no way means "rare". It means critical, nothing more.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It has been theorized that the word "critical" in critical hit denotes rarity. And that having large critical threat ranges are thus contrary to the meaning of "critical hit". That is hogwash. Critical in no way means "rare". It means critical, nothing more.



 Is 5% as the default crit not considered rare?  I think it does since that's the minimum percentage.  Your tortured reading has you substituting game terms and English words interchangeably as it suits you.  A "crit" in D&D/d20 means much more than in general English.  So, yes, "critical" means critical (really an astute observation), but only if you mean the D&D term, which as a default implies rarity.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 7, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Is 5% as the default crit not considered rare?  I think it does since that's the minimum percentage.  Your tortured reading has you substituting game terms and English words interchangeably as it suits you.  A "crit" in D&D/d20 means much more than in general English.  So, yes, "critical" means critical (really an astute observation), but only if you mean the D&D term, which as a default implies rarity.




No, it doesn't. It means an effective strike. It does not necessarily mean a rare strike. Yes, the default is 20, but many weapons have larger threat ranges, and there are many ways to increase those threat ranges. As a result, your theory that 'critical" means "rare" in D&D is complete hogwash. None of the words you have trotted out to show that "critical" means "rare" (i.e. "critical", "event", and "significant") have definitions even in the ballpark or the meaning you ascribe to them. Saying the "default is 5%" is just not meaningful. The default for humans is a 1st level commoner with Str 10, Int 11, Wis, 10, Dex 111, Con 10, Cha 11 or something similar. Are you now going to argue that having characters whose abilities depart from this is bad too?


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Really? Is there something in the definition of the word "critical" that mandates rarity?



Why are you picking on the word "critical" when my critique was centred on the concept of the "critical hit". You are ignoring the context of the concept & instead zooming in a component word, isolating it & then placing emphasis on it within a separate context. Nevermind that the word critical has a dozen different meanings to boot. I call that a double rationalization & it is a poor mans attack in that it seems to want to lure me into defending some peripheral strawman.

Instead let's cut the nonsense & talk about the pros/cons of commonly occurring criticals, because that is the real issue you'r trying to take me to task on.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 7, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Why are you picking on the word "critical" when my critique was centred on the concept of the "critical hit". You are ignoring the context of the concept & instead zooming in a component word, isolating it & then placing emphasis on it within a separate context. Nevermind that the word critical has a dozen different meanings to boot. I call that a double rationalization & it is a poor mans attack in that it seems to want to lure me into defending some peripheral strawman.




Expanding the question to the phrase "critical hit" doesn't help your case much. There isn't anything inherent in the term "critical hit" that implies rarity, or really anything other than a particularly well-placed or damaging attack.



> _Instead let's cut the nonsense & talk about the pros/cons of commonly occurring criticals, because that is the real issue you'r trying to take me to task on._





Do you truly find it a problem that highly skilled combatants, with a minimum of a +8 BAB, and either a feat or a weapon that costs more than five suits of full plate armor (or as is commonly house ruled, both) would be particularly good at scoring more damaging strikes on a regular basis as opposed to a lesser and not as specialized combatant? Exactly why would it be a problem to have such a highly specialized character around, especially since it doesn't seem to cause any actual game balance issues.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 7, 2005)

I won't discuss the word "critical" any further for stated reason.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of the critical hit, & it is perfectly acceptable that there is a mechanism to further improve it. What I have a problem with is this concept that it is good game design to allow improving the improvement within the cramped limitation of the d20 to hit roll. 'Balance' while a central consideration, is not the only consideration in good game design. 

I have never had a problem with the keen/imp crit stack for balance reasons because even the worst case scenario, the falchion, has such a heavy amount of delayed gratification built into it that I do not consider it in the 'must pick' category.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Saying the "default is 5%" is just not meaningful.



 It is absolutely meaningful when the definition uses it. Ignoring it is ignoring the definition.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The default for humans is a 1st level commoner with Str 10, Int 11, Wis, 10, Dex 111, Con 10, Cha 11 or something similar. Are you now going to argue that having characters whose abilities depart from this is bad too?



 No.  Having a character that departs from a Dex of 111 is a good thing, but only if lower.  _Much _ lower.  In any case, why are you now using the word 'bad'?  That's a loaded word.  I don't believe I said 'bad' previously or even remotely alluded to it.

I still fail to see where you are going with this line of argumentation.  Is it worthwhile to challenge FreeTheSlaves's opinion of criticals being rare?  Or, are you just spoiling for a fight?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Do you truly find it a problem that highly skilled combatants, with a minimum of a +8 BAB, and either a feat or a weapon that costs more than five suits of full plate armor (or as is commonly house ruled, both) would be particularly good at scoring more damaging strikes on a regular basis as opposed to a lesser and not as specialized combatant? Exactly why would it be a problem to have such a highly specialized character around, especially since it doesn't seem to cause any actual game balance issues.



 This shows a lack of understanding of FreeTheSlaves's point.  You got so intwined in picking apart 'critical' and its unsaid 'rarity' that you didn't even read his post correctly.  Perhaps he didn't express himself entirely clearly, but really, whoever does?


----------



## argo (Dec 8, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Instead let's cut the nonsense & talk about the pros/cons of commonly occurring criticals



Fair enough.  So now we're back to the "keen+improved crit stacking is bad because it makes crits not-special" argument.

This one really is more of a matter of personal taste.  Personally I attach little/no emotional value to the "specialness" of crits.  I view them simply as a blow that strikes at a more vulneurable area much the same as Sneak Attack (and to the extent allowed by dnd's abstract hit points; just what is does a 20 point crit do to a Barb with 100 hp?).  As such it seems perfectly logical to me that if a high-level warrior is looking for ways to improve his killing ability that he may choose to focus on learning to concentrate his blows on vital spots.  In that contex I have no problem with commonly occuring crits.

The real clincher for me is that I don't see how letting the fighter have his 12-20 threat range makes crits "less special" for everyone else.  Soon crits will just be a standard part of the fighter's average damage output its true but the barbarian is still walking around with a 20/x3 on his greataxe.  For him crits are still rare and when he does land one, while raging and going full PA, I guarantee it will seem special at that moment.  Will the barbarian really look at his 75+ points-of-damage-crit and shrug and say "yeah but the fighter crits so often ..."

So why exactly does a fighter with a 12-20 threat range ruin the barbarian's fun?

Later.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 8, 2005)

One of the strengths of d&d combat is that there are so many facets of it that model cinematic aspects while the holistic system does not bog down in detail.

The critical hit serves a function that draws the players attention to a significant event in combat that can alter tactics. E.g. the BBEG crits with a *3 weapon on the fighter drawing gasps & so the cleric & fighter then plan their actions to rendezvous to redress the situation, etc... Of course without augmentations, this is pretty rare occurrance & with augmentations it still is a minority except for the 15+ scimitar/rapier/falchion. At 15+ the falchion fighter probably threatens on a hit about 40% of the time because at around the mid-levels onward the primary fighter's BAB start to out-strip the average AC as the secondary attack grows in importance, i.e. the primary BAB fighting type starts to hit on numbers lower then 11. Regardless, the 15+ critical has become fairly common, common enough I think to represent the crit skilled archetype. With 2 attacks there is already a better than even odds that they are at least going to threaten a crit, so already they player's character is drawing the crowds attention.

Admittedly this is all academic because I never experienced it in my games, but the 12+ crit has some fairly obvious effects. The majority of successful hits occur in the upper range of the d20, if we bring the 3/4 BAB classes into the equation. We've got such characters pretty consistantly generating critical threats & hits so much so that the words 'critical hit' is becoming common. But we've still got the *3 (the 19+/*2 weapons are not so important) generating criticals which are of greater significance to the tactical situation as they suddenly dump a whack load of damage. 

Without going further in this examination I see 2 problems here. The 12+ crit is occurring with such regularity that there is a case building which is strong enough in my opinion, for it to be replaced with a flat bonus. The criticals are beginning to occur more often than the standard hit, which perversely is then beginning to be the focus that influences combat: i.e. "drat guys, I only did a standard hit on this enemy..." The base description of our crit expert has become one of constant sharp attacks & where the successful standard attack is against the norm. It is a classic case of untrammelled satiation where the lack of limitation distorts perspective, 'to hit' is supposed to be 'to succeed'. The second problem is merely a hinderence to communication, that of the significant *3 event being lost in the chorus of critical hits.

****

As an afterthought Argo, I pose you with this question. Would you object to a 3rd or 4th critical augmentation that could potentially improve the threat range to 9+ or 6+ respectively? If you would object, on what grounds would you justify it?


----------

