
Roberta Yang |

And if he crits, he does an extra d6. Woohoo. [...] But we're talking about crits that are an extra weapon die of damage [...] it's just another d6 or d8.
Looks like the whole thing was based on a misunderstanding of how crits work. It seems like SKR thought they only multiplied the damage die itself, when in fact it also multiplies static bonuses like STR mod.
EDIT: Nevermind, the numbers in the "another aside" calculation do seem to take into account STR mod being multiplied. But that raises questions about the honesty of the rant; it's clearly not "just" another die like he insists over and over later on (why would anyone ever take Keen over something like Flaming that always grants another die if that were the case?). And there's other weird games where the Paladin's ability to Smite Evil is counted as a point in the greatsword's favor for some reason.
At any rate, Pathfinder has a bunch of extra static bonuses to multiply, Critical Focus, and all those fancy crit feats.

![]() |

Why don't these stack?
Isn't Sean K. Reynolds one of the lead developers? Isn't he also the guy who wrote this?
(http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html)What happened?
At our table we decided to add one to the critical range in this case. So no more rapier that crits on a 13-20 score, but a 17-20 instead.

Bob_Loblaw |

Backwards compatibility? Maybe they also felt that they could make the critical feats interesting without making them happen 50% of the time (which would make them routine) in some builds.
I allow them to stack in my games and I don't have any problems. I know that there are going to be more critical hits and that's just the way it goes.

![]() |

It's originally a nerf from the 3.0 to 3.5 transition that got kept. Basically, in 3.0 it was possible using various stacking crit range adjusters to get something like 5-20/x2. That's not a typo.
3.5 arguably overreacted and made none of that stuff stack in order to curtail those sorts of builds.
You might be okay allowing them to stack as a house rule. About the worst thing you'll see is maybe a falcata weapon master with 15-20/x4 a few times a day.

![]() |

ryric wrote:About the worst thing you'll see is maybe a falcata weapon master with 15-20/x4 a few times a day.Umm... in your typical mid level fights, it's statistically 0.9 times per round to threaten on a 15+
I don't exactly consider this to be a few times a day.
The weapon master ability to bump the multiplier to x4 is a times/day ability. The rest of the time it would be 15-20/x3.

Jeraa |

Why don't these stack?
Isn't Sean K. Reynolds one of the lead developers? Isn't he also the guy who wrote this?
(http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html)What happened?
8 years have passed since then. He could of changed his mind. Or maybe he did want to include it in PAthfinder, but got overruled. He isn't Pathfinder's only developer. He isn't even the top developer - that would be Jason Bulmahn.

Humphrey Boggard |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Neo2151 wrote:8 years have passed since then. He could of changed his mind. Or maybe he did want to include it in PAthfinder, but got overruled. He isn't Pathfinder's only developer. He isn't even the top developer - that would be Jason Bulmahn.Why don't these stack?
Isn't Sean K. Reynolds one of the lead developers? Isn't he also the guy who wrote this?
(http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html)What happened?
Sorry, but once SKR writes something on a blog it becomes part of the Holy Scripture of Rules Knowledge that I will bend to its maximum extent in crafting a build of unparalleled power, which I will crow about in the forums but never actually play in a game.

Jodokai |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Sorry, but once SKR writes something on a blog it becomes part of the Holy Scripture of Rules Knowledge that I will bend to its maximum extent in crafting a build of unparalleled power, which I will crow about in the forums but never actually play in a game.
Yeah right, like that ever happens.

![]() |

In the change from 3.0 to 3.5, I hated this nerf!
Making sense is important! The rules say that the same effect shouldn't stack with itself; fine! I wouldn't let Scabbard of Keen Edges stack with a Keen weapon either.
But Keen and Improved Critical, while both doubling the crit range, do so in entirely different ways, conceptually; Keen makes the edge magically sharp, Improved Critical allows a character to be better at aiming for vital spots! They should stack!
No-one has any problem with damage bonus from high Str stacking with damage bonus from magic!

KainPen |
I housed ruled that it stacked in my 3.5 game for the very reason you state one untyped skill or feat based bonus and the other is magic encament. I have not done this in pathfinder yet, as I am slowly house ruling these things in. So they one hit a monster every now and again. It works both ways the monsters can one hit them also. With the vital strike chain it may not be nessary to let them stack though.

NobodysHome |

Depends on your house rules. I play cumulative criticals (if your confirmation roll is in the crit range again, it's a 'double crit' and you roll to confirm again, ad nauseum). In Monday's game, I watched a paladin with a keen scimitar roll a quintuple crit, one-shotting a fairly tough critter.
So I like that they don't stack, but only because I do cumulative crits. Without cumulative crits, I'd probably house rule to allow stacking.
But yes, RAW is far more restrictive than I care for.

Haladir |

My house rule in my campaign is that there's a partial stack. If you're using a keen weapon and have Improved Critical for that weapon type, the crit threat range increases by 1.
So, if you have Improved Critical (longsword) and a keen longsword, the threat range is 16-20.
I think that's a non-broken compromise.

![]() |

ryric wrote:About the worst thing you'll see is maybe a falcata weapon master with 15-20/x4 a few times a day.Umm... in your typical mid level fights, it's statistically 0.9 times per round to threaten on a 15+
I don't exactly consider this to be a few times a day.
Think Kensai with a keen scimitar and improved critical. A 12-20 crit range with a 10d6 shocking grasp is not trivial.

![]() |

Midnight_Angel wrote:Think Kensai with a keen scimitar and improved critical. A 12-20 crit range with a 10d6 shocking grasp is not trivial.ryric wrote:About the worst thing you'll see is maybe a falcata weapon master with 15-20/x4 a few times a day.Umm... in your typical mid level fights, it's statistically 0.9 times per round to threaten on a 15+
I don't exactly consider this to be a few times a day.
So what? The 10d6 doesn't get multiplied on a crit!

![]() |

Why wouldn't Shocking Grasp get multiplied on a critical hit? It is a spell that is, in fact, capable of critting. And a Magus is, in fact, capable of using his/her weapon's threat range in place of the spell's threat range.
I've just read the magus' Spellstrike ability and I stand corrected. It specifically says that if the weapon crits then the spell also crits for x2 damage.
This is a feature of Spellstrike; normally a spell with an attack roll can crit by itself, but if spell damage becomes bonus damage dice on a weapon's damage then bonus dice don't get multiplied on a critical.

Timothy Hanson |
Right, but Str mods, Power Attack, weapon bonus, feats, favored enemy stuff all does. Duel wielding scimitars can get pretty nasty with +16 damage X3 with a crit range of 12+, and that is low balling everything. Add on top of that all the feats that let you apply effects onto crits and you are looking at a pretty significant impact.

Neo2151 |

Right, but Str mods, Power Attack, weapon bonus, feats, favored enemy stuff all does. Duel wielding scimitars can get pretty nasty with +16 damage X3 with a crit range of 12+, and that is low balling everything. Add on top of that all the feats that let you apply effects onto crits and you are looking at a pretty significant impact.
But all these sorts of things existed in the game 8 years ago, when the original argument was made (or remade rather). And yet, SKR still felt it wasn't big enough to deny the stacking of the feat and the magical ability. (Sure, your options might be different now, but there were still options.)

Odraude |

Something we shouldn't forget is that while the Improved Critical/Keen still cannot stack, critical hits did get a buff of sorts into Pathfinder. They made critical hits affect more creature types. For example, Undead and Construct creature types lost their immunity to critical hits. This is quite a big deal, as undead are one of the most common enemy types a player will fight in their DnD lifetime. Zombies and skeletons make great minions for players that have graduated from goblin smashing, while many undead like vampires and liches are classic boss fights. As for Constructs, they tend to be more mini-boss/boos fights that can be rough to take down early on, so crits really help to whittle down that HP.
At the moment, oozes are the only main type of creature that retains an immunity to critical hits. Other subtypes have them:
Aeon
Elemental
Incorporeal
Protean
Swarms
But those are only five subtypes, and those five are (hopefully) creatures you don't encounter on a daily basis. At the very least, they are more rare than corporeal undead.
Perhaps that is the reason? *shrug*

Ashiel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Why don't these stack?
Isn't Sean K. Reynolds one of the lead developers? Isn't he also the guy who wrote this?
(http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html)What happened?
Martial characters received a ton of nerfs from 3.0 to 3.5. In 3.0 martial characters were actually pretty cool, and the designers and folks often said there was no need to revise Fighters from 3.0 to 3.5 because they were doing A-OK. Whereas Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins all received some modifications and/or buffs to make them better.
However, warriors of all sorts received a number of stealth-nerfs throughout the entire system. The haste + improved keen nerf was a major one. See hit points in 3.x/PF rise very, very quickly. Much quicker than damage does (this is one of the reasons that blasting is not very good unless you very, very heavily optimize it). The higher you go in level the more damage you must deal to matter.
Just as a quick example, at 1st level 1d12+6 deals an average of 12.5 damage, and your enemies likely have 12 or less hit points. At 15th level, 1d12+15 deals an average of 21.5 damage and your enemies have an average of 220 hit points. So unless you're full-attacking every round, then your damage is pretty meaningless against them. Even in the case of full-attacking (at 15th level that's about 4 attacks with haste) the chances of dropping an enemy with 130 hit points is pretty bad (even though 130 HP is CR-5 for the 15th level warrior, the chances of dropping them in a single round of full-attacking is low unless you get some crits in).
Now in 3.0, martials had ways to compete with HP growth. Keen + Improved Critical stacked, which meant that in core 3.0 D&D you could get weapons with the following critical hit ranges: 12-20/x2, 15-20/x3, 17-20/x4. 3.0 also had haste which was more potent than today's haste but was single-target. 3.0 haste granted an extra standard or move action each round. Naturally allowed martials to full-attack regularly because you could use the bonus move action to approach an enemy, then use your full-round action to get all your attacks in (and if your enemy was already in melee then you could have taken your extra standard action as an attack to get +1 attack that round at highest BAB).
Furthermore, martial characters in 3.0 benefited from more reasonable weapon size rules. A longsword for a human was effectively a greatsword for a halfling, and could be wielded by the halfling with no penalty with 2 hands. Likewise, a human with Bastard Sword proficiency might dual wield two small sized bastard swords (1d8/19-20/x2) in each hand, or might wield a large-sized bastard sword in 2 hands (2d8/19-20/x2). Medium sized warriors such as humans and dwarfs could wield small longspears as 1 handed weapons (the damage was only 1d6 but you got reach and could wear a shield and shout things like "This is Sparta!" long before it was cool).
When 3.5 came around they said "Martials are fine". "Haste needs a nerf" they said. And they nerfed weapons so that using a weapon normally intended for another size category gave you a -2 to hit, so now you could no longer pick up the ogre's longsword and wield it in 2 hands as a human without getting terribly penalized, or wield 1-handed spears, or use your bastard sword feat to get a greatsword-like weapon with +2 damage or two light weapons with +1 damage.
On the WotC forums way back in the day when they announced the haste revision, they gave the excuse that one standard action was too much, and that it was too strong in the hands of mages would could use the standard action to cast more spells (so with haste + quicken + normal you could get off 3 spells per round if you were trying hard), and that was supposedly the reason for the nerf. Which is pretty stupid because if that was in fact the reason, they could have just changed it from 1 standard action to 1 attack action and solved the whole thing without nerfing high level warriors to either standing still and fighting or moving and sucking.
And then the explanation that they gave -- that I can remember -- for the Improved Crit + Keen nerf was that Vorpal weapons were too awesome because in 3.0 vorpal occurred on a critical hit. See below:
Vorpal
This enchantment allows the weapon to sever the heads of those it strikes. Upon a successful critical hit, the weapon severs the opponent’s head (if it has one) from its body. Some creatures have no heads. Others are not affected by the loss of their heads. Most other creatures, however, die when their heads are cut off. The DM may have to make judgment calls about this sword’s effect. A vorpal weapon must be a slashing weapon. (If this property is rolled randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.)
Caster Level: 18th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge, death spell; Market Price: +5 bonus.
So this was the reason for the nerf given. Except they also nerfed the Vorpal weapon quality to only function on a natural 20 regardless of what your critical threat range was, which means that it looks like it was an over-nerf or panick-nerf where two different rules got nerfed because of how they interacted, instead of just nerfing the offender rule.
The result? People throughout 3.5 whining (rightfully) about martial characters (especially in core) being weak and more or less useless at medium to higher levels compared to spellcasters. Some of which still remains true today but to a much lesser extent.
=======================================================================
From a purely anecdotal standpoint, much like Bob_Loblaw I allow Keen + Improved Critical to stack in my games. Likewise I've recently added an option to haste to give the caster the option to cast it as it is in 3.5/Pathfinder (1 target / caster level) or a focused version (1 target) that functions more like the 3.0 version (+1 attack or move action per round), and use 3.0 weapon rules in my home games and it only makes our games better and makes martial characters competitive against their enemies right on through high levels.

Odraude |

I don't know, I'm alright with having a 20%-30% chance to crit (depending on the weapon) personally. I guess if they stacked, you'd have a 9-20 crit chance (60%) on weapons with 18-20 critical range. I guess to me, it feels a bit high.
But I suppose I'm alright with not one shotting things. As a fighter player, it can get a little anticlimactic if I one-shot the BBEG. I've played Pathfinder up to level 18 with a fighter and I never felt useless with damage so it works for me. And hell, if it works in your games and people are having fun, that's cool in my book :)

Odraude |

For the record Odraude, they stack linearly, same as critical hits do with damage multipliers.
18-20 becomes 15-20 and then 12-20, for example.
It's still really good, but not quite so silly as critting on the majority of attacks. :P
Ah I see. Well that is certainly much more reasonable.

Are |

It's still really good, but not quite so silly as critting on the majority of attacks. :P
In 3.0 there were a couple of PrC's that increased threat range or threat multiplier, too. You could reach 7-20/x3 with a couple of those in combination (Weapon Master and Disciple of Dispater), if you started with a 18-20/x2 weapon. There were probably other options to vastly increase threat range as well.

wraithstrike |

Wraithstrike, if there is any way to figure in the Critical feats and show their effectiveness, please do that. I am curious if they are worth taking.
I have used the critical feats in a game. The later ones are nice.
Stunning Critical is nice. If they fail the save they are stunned for 1d4 rounds. If they make the save they are staggered for 1d4 rounds. It is a good way to shut an enemy combatant down. If you go weapon master, and take ability focus the save goes up even more. These are the only two I really like.
If I have the build still around I will post it and some numbers later.

wraithstrike |

wasent there something (a wpn quality maby) that allowed you to improve the roll to confirm crits in 3.0 and 3.5?
I don't think so. I knew most of the splat books, and I don't remember any, but there were so many books I might have missed something. I only know that I had a weapon critting with a roll of less than 10 if keen and improved crit stack, while doing X3 damage IIRC. I don't remember the exact number.

Gauss |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

If there is a problem with Imp. Critical and Keen stacking it is not Falchion vs Greatsword damage. It might be the +22 damage bonus both might have. So to take a look:
How to get +22damage bonus at level 8: +6*1.5 (9) strength bonus, +1 weapon enhancement, +2 specialization, +9power attack, +1 Weapon Training.
Assuming identical attack bonuses and the attack hits:
Compare no Imp. Critical or Keen:
2d4+22 18-20/x2 = 27 + (27*0.15) = 31.05 damage per hit
2d6+22 19-20/x2 = 29 + (29*0.10) = 31.90 damage per hit
Now compare Imp. Critical OR Keen:
2d4+22 15-20/x2 = 27 + (27*0.30) = 35.10 damage per hit
2d6+22 17-20/x2 = 29 + (29*0.20) = 34.80 damage per hit
Now compare Imp. Critical AND Keen:
2d4+22 12-20/x2 = 27 + (27*0.45) = 39.15 damage per hit
2d6+22 15-20/x2 = 29 + (29*0.30) = 37.70 damage per hit
At Improved Critical (or Keen) both weapons are about the same (at this static bonus). Even with both of them, there is only a small difference in damage potential.
However, as the static bonuses go up the damage difference will increase.
A 'worst case' level 20 straight fighter while enlarged:
Assume: 20 starting strength, maximum level advancement of strength (+5 to strength), +6enhancement to strength, +5 inherent to strength (yeah right..but ok), +2strength from enlarge, +4 weapon specialization, +6 Weapon Training, +5 weapon enhancement we have:
14*1.5strength bonus, +4weapon specialization, +18power attack, +6weapon training, +5weapon enhancement = 21+4+18+6+5 = +54static.
Level 20 enlarged Imp. Critical OR Keen 'worst case':
2d6+54 15-20/x3 = 61.0 + 2(61.0*0.30) = 97.60 damage per hit
3d6+54 17-20/x3 = 64.5 + 2(64.5*0.20) = 90.30 damage per hit
Level 20 enlarged Imp. Critical AND Keen 'worst case':
2d6+54 13-20/x3 = 61.0 + 2(61.0*0.45) = 115.90 damage per hit
3d6+52 15-20/x3 = 64.5 + 2(64.5*0.30) = 103.20 damage per hit
The difference between the two weapons is 7.48% with only Imp. Critical or Keen and 10.96% with both. A change of less than 3.5%.
While the static bonuses could be increased via spells, powers, etc beyond the fighter this is mostly just the fighter himself with a potion of enlarge. In the end, I think that the difference between the two is not that great.
So if the difference between the weapons is not that big a deal is there some other reason for the 3.0->3.5 nerf? Well back in 3.0 there were prestige classes/combos that turned improved critical+keen+other crap into massive damage machines. That isn't a difference between weapons, it is a difference between Imp. Crit+Keen and not letting them stack.
PF has given a bit back to the critical builds without increasing the critical odds. I personally think this is just right because we still wind up with level 20 fighters that can pump out around 350DPR. I shudder to think what the DPR would be if the two were combined again. Oh wait, it would be around 410 instead. (115.9-97.6 = 18.3. Attacks: 18*0.95 + 18*0.95, 18*0.80 + 18*0.55 + 18*0.30 = 63.9+350 = 413.9)
We don't need them to stack. Martial damage in PF is nasty enough as is.
- Gauss

Hayato Ken |

I agree with Gauss.
While the improved crit. and Keen stacking could be nice for some medium BAB builds, it would be overdone.
The rapier could use a little buff yes, as could some finesseable weapons at all. And also one-handed reach spears would be quite cool.
But martials do enough damage. When i remember the damage dedicated babarian i GMed, i still get a headache.
DR is more of an issue often i think.
Or some feat chains. Better incorporate more maneuvers into one feat, take that and be able to do maneuvers with a +2 without provoking.
Or leave out Combat Expertise and instead hang a chain on that allwoing you to further enhance your defenses and maybe parry or something.

![]() |

Alternatively, stacking improved crit. and keen could do something else, raise the x2 to x3 or something.
I like this!
When I got the original 3.0 PHB, it had some examples of +1 weapon abilities in the back, including Keen.
I saw that Keen increased the threat range, and I assumed that there would be another magical weapon ability that increased the critical multiplier. I was disappointed to find there was no such ability in the DMG when it finally came out (which seemed like ages!). Nor has there ever been a feat that did this to complement Improved Critical.
Since then there have been very rare PrC abilities that increased the crit multiplier, but basically it's unavailable to the vast majority.
This means that to get a weapon to 1d8 (19-20/x3) you can make a battle-axe Keen but you can't make a longsword x3. I've always wondered why; any insights?

Gauss |

Because to increase the multiplier might be a darker road than increasing the threat range. I do not have time to show the math but it would be as bad or worse than allowing Imp. Crit and Keen to stack in the old way.
Note: The level 20 fighter has a capstone ability of +1 damage multiplier.
- Gauss

![]() |

It being a 20th level fighter ability perfectly illustrates that it is something unavailable to the vast majority of characters.
About the maths; I can't be bothered either, but 19-20/x3 is the same as 19-20/x3! Why is it okay for a battle-axe but not for a longsword?
If you have a x4 crit weapon making it x5 is only 25% better, so that's worth a feat maybe but it's not unbalancing. Making a x2 weapon x3 is 50% better, but that just leaves us with a x3 weapon. So what?

Roberta Yang |

But when you stack that effect on a 18-20/x2 Keen weapon, you now have a 15-20/x3 weapon, which would be very powerful. You can't say "a generic feat like that should exist because I can get a 19-20/x3 weapon one way or another" because such a feat can be used in much stronger ways than that.
It would be like saying "I should be allowed to take Improved Critical four times with the same weapon because if I do so with a 20/x2 weapon then I still only have a 16-20/x2 crit, which isn't even as good as what can already be done anyhow!" Yeah, but if you could take Improved Critical four times you could instead get a 6-20/x2 weapon, which combined with one of those "when you crit" feats would just murder everything. You can't deem a feat Not Broken by looking at some of the less powerful things it can do.

Ashiel |

But when you stack that effect on a 18-20/x2 Keen weapon, you now have a 15-20/x3 weapon, which would be very powerful. You can't say "a generic feat like that should exist because I can get a 19-20/x3 weapon one way or another" because such a feat can be used in much stronger ways than that.
It would be like saying "I should be allowed to take Improved Critical four times with the same weapon because if I do so with a 20/x2 weapon then I still only have a 16-20/x2 crit, which isn't even as good as what can already be done anyhow!" Yeah, but if you could take Improved Critical four times you could instead get a 6-20/x2 weapon, which combined with one of those "when you crit" feats would just murder everything. You can't deem a feat Not Broken by looking at some of the less powerful things it can do.
If it could only be applied with limits or restrictions then you could do just that. For example, if you had a feat that increased the base threat range of your weapon by 1 each time you took it, to a maximum base threat range of 18-20, then it would work out. Scimitars and the like would have no gain at all, longswords and crossbows would only need 1 feat, and axes and hammers would need 2 feats.
Not that I'm necessarily endorsing such an idea, just saying that it's entirely possible to throw the bath water out without chucking the baby with it. :P

![]() |

I wouldn't let Keen stack with Keen, nor would I let Improved Critical Stack with Improved Critical.
The threat range and critical multiplier are separate things. Once I have confirmed that threat, then the threat range has no further impact; the crit multiplier kicks in. If x3 is not broken for axes then it's not broken for swords.
Multipliers of x4 already exist, so the only new thing would be x5, and ive already pointed out that that is only a 25% increase and you've spent a feat to do so. It's not +25% on your entire damage output, only when you confirm a critical!
If you use a scythe it's x4, with the theoretical feat it's x5. So what? Is your game going to fall down? If you also have Keen or Improved Critical it's 19-20/x5, with all three it's 18-20/x5. Cool, but not unbalancing given you've spent two feats and have an enchanted weapon. These are feats and magical abilities that you'd spend in other ways to do more DPR; no-one bats an eyelid if you add Str/magic/weapon training/specialisation/gloves of Dueling/morale/luck/etc/etc/etc bonuses together, why does extending the threat range or increasing the crit multiplier suddenly make people cry 'foul!'?

Roberta Yang |

Why are we looking at 18-20/x5 when it's obvious that 12-20/x3 is just as easy and does more damage and does that damage more consistently?
Assuming a basic fighter with three iteratives hitting on 2, 6, and 11, moving up from 15-20/x2 (what is currently allowed) to 12-20/x3 (what your proposal would allow) increases your DPR by 52% (from 2.98 times your average damage on a non-crit to 4.54 times your average dmaage on a non-crit), and that's before getting into any "when you crit, debuff" effects occurring 50% more often. Yes, there are other ways of increasing DPR, but they don't increase DPR by that much for that little investment.
EDIT: If you use the current optimal crit of 17-20/x3, moving up to 12-20/x3 is "only" a 40% increase in DPR. Which, considering that the cost difference between them is only either a single feat or Keen, is still an absurd boost.