I thought about some feats for the fighter which are "missing" from the rules. ;-)
The first two are designed to open the way to the "critical" feats with weapons that have a low threat range:
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are even deadlier.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon which can't have a critical multiplier better than X3, Improved Critical for that weapon, 12th-level fighter.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Greater Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, except the Improved Critical feat.
A weapon can't gain a threat range better than 15-20 using this feat. If the doubled threat range would be bigger than 15-20, you gain a threat range of 15-20 instead.
...and:
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are even deadlier.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon which can't have a critical multiplier better than X2, Greater Critical for that weapon, 16th-level fighter.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Perfect Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, except the Greater Critical feat.
A weapon can't gain a threat range better than 15-20 using this feat. If the doubled threat range would be bigger than 15-20, you gain a threat range of 15-20 instead.
These feats enable fighters who chose to specialize in a weapon with a low threat range to gain a threat range which makes the other critical feats usefull. Weapons which have a natural higher threat range still have an advantage, because you don't have to invest feats for them.
Maybe the feats should have additional prerequisites (weapon focus with weapon, ...), and maybe its necessary to exclude ranged weapons?
The next three feats are designed to give weapons special properties:
You have learned to make Trip attacks with a weapon not designed for it.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with melee weapon, 8th-level fighter
Benefit: The weapon gains the "Trip" property.
Special: You can gain Trip Trick multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
...same for disarm:
You have learned to make Disarm attacks with a weapon not designed for it.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with melee weapon, 6th-level fighter
Benefit: The weapon gains the "Disarm" property.
Special: You can gain Disarm Trick multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
... and brace:
You have learned to brace against a charge with a weapon not designed for it.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with melee weapon with reach, 4th-level fighter
Benefit: The weapon gains the "Brace" property.
Special: You can gain Brace Trick multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
What do you think? Too powerful? Not powerful enough? Any suggestions?
I really like the 'Trick' feats, they can give a fighter some options with a weapon they wouldn't normally have. My biggest question there though is how do you set(brace) a light mace against a charge, or a club, or something non-pointy? Or even a dagger really? Or a Bow? I'd restrict it to non-light piercing and slashing weapons.
Once you get down to 15-20 these feats dont help you, so there's no real reason for the 18-20 weapon users to take them, that's a bit of a shame cause it's what they focus on. A mechanic that I've seen before is to increase the threat range by 1. For Greater Critical you could make it drop the threat range by 1, making it 14-20 for the big crit range weapons, still pretty dang powerful. Then to top off the chain with Perfect Critical, we change it around so that the multiplier gets increased instead of the threat range. At the end of the chain a kukri, rapier, etc user would have a 14-20 crit and a x3 multiplier instead of the 2-20 crit range and be much more in balance (relatively speaking).
I really like the 'Trick' feats, they can give a fighter some options with a weapon they wouldn't normally have. My biggest question there though is how do you set(brace) a light mace against a charge, or a club, or something non-pointy? Or even a dagger really? Or a Bow? I'd restrict it to non-light piercing and slashing weapons.
For that reason I introduced as a prerequisite that the weapon must be a melee weapon which already has reach. So the weapons to use this on would be the "hafted" weapons which don't already have "brace", like the glaive for example.
Once you get down to 15-20 these feats dont help you, so there's no real reason for the 18-20 weapon users to take them, that's a bit of a shame cause it's what they focus on. A mechanic that I've seen before is to increase the threat range by 1. For Greater Critical you could make it drop the threat range by 1, making it 14-20 for the big crit range weapons, still pretty dang powerful. Then to top off the chain with Perfect Critical, we change it around so that the multiplier gets increased instead of the threat range. At the end of the chain a kukri, rapier, etc user would have a 14-20 crit and a x3 multiplier instead of the 2-20 crit range and be much more in balance (relatively speaking).
These feats are intended for the users of low-threat-range weapons to make the other critical feats useful (Critical Focus feat tree). Fighters using high-threat-range weapons are not meant to benefit from these feats. My intention was that there should be no way to
- achieve a threat range better than 15-20 with a X2 crit weapon- achieve a threat range better than 17-20 with a X3 crit weapon
- achieve a threat range better than 19-20 with a X4 crit weapon
If you started with a 18-20 weapon, Improved Critical would bring you to 15-20, and Greater / Perfect Critical would have no further effect, so you wouldn't take it.
If you started with a 19-20 weapon, Imprived Critical would bring you to 17-20, and Greater Critical would bring you to the maximum 15-20 (but NOT 13-20 !!!).
If you started with a 20 weapon, Imprived Critical would bring you to 19-20, Greater Critical would bring you to 17-20, and Perfect Critical would bring you to the maximum 15-20 (but NOT 13-20 !!!).
I really like the 'Trick' feats, they can give a fighter some options with a weapon they wouldn't normally have. My biggest question there though is how do you set(brace) a light mace against a charge, or a club, or something non-pointy? Or even a dagger really? Or a Bow? I'd restrict it to non-light piercing and slashing weapons.For that reason I introduced as a prerequisite that the weapon must be a melee weapon which already has reach. So the weapons to use this on would be the "hafted" weapons which don't already have "brace", like the glaive for example.
Yep, I missed that part, sorry it's late.
These feats are intended for the users of low-threat-range weapons to make the other critical feats useful (Critical Focus feat tree). Fighters using high-threat-range weapons are not meant to benefit from these feats. My intention was that there should be no way to
- achieve a threat range better than 15-20 with a X2 crit weapon
- achieve a threat range better than 17-20 with a X3 crit weapon
- achieve a threat range better than 19-20 with a X4 crit weapon
I'm not really a fan of large crit ranges to start with, so I certainly understand your thinking there. To be honest I think that's probably the main reason there isnt an extended critical feat chain. With your stated limitations in place, I'd think a 1 point increase would still be the better solution. An 18-20 weapon wouldn't gain beyond 15-20 which in my opinion is already pushing the limit. A 19-20 weapon would improve to 17-20 with Imp Critical, 16-20 with Greater Critical, and then you could round it out with Perfect Critical at 15-20 on most x2's. The feats are valuable to the extent someone wants to buy them and not overly powerful. A 20 threat weapon would max out at the 17-20 range with Perfect Critical. The x4 are just out of luck I suppose (but I certainly understand the reasoning). I guess all this really does is extend the feat cost by 1, but when it comes to increasing critical ranges, I'd be happy with that.
Edited the initial post to clearify the handling of the maximum threat range.
I'm not really a fan of large crit ranges to start with, so I certainly understand your thinking there. To be honest I think that's probably the main reason there isnt an extended critical feat chain. With your stated limitations in place, I'd think a 1 point increase would still be the better solution. An 18-20 weapon wouldn't gain beyond 15-20 which in my opinion is already pushing the limit. A 19-20 weapon would improve to 17-20 with Imp Critical, 16-20 with Greater Critical, and then you could round it out with Perfect Critical at 15-20 on most x2's. The feats are valuable to the extent someone wants to buy them and not overly powerful. A 20 threat weapon would max out at the 17-20 range with Perfect Critical. The x4 are just out of luck I suppose (but I certainly understand the reasoning). I guess all this really does is extend the feat cost by 1, but when it comes to...
If the feats as I posted them seem too powerful, it would be a good solution to change them so that they increase the threat range by 1 instead of doubling it.
Brace Trick should probably specify "hafted". RAW it works with whips, as well as numerous non-core flexible weapons.
You are right, I didn't think about that.
Your crit feats are mathematically exactly as strong as Improved Critical itself is assuming that a 15+ is always a hit, and weaker than Imp. Crit if you need a higher number than that to hit. In fact, there's really no reason to limit them 15-20; large crit ranges do not break the game.
I'd disagree with that considering the 20th level fighter ability to automatically confirm. Combined with those feats (Greater, Perfect Critical) without caps on the threat range, a 20th level fighter wielding 2 18-20 threat weapons would crit on 2-20 and auto-confirm.
Greater Critical (Combat)
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon which can't have a critical multiplier better than X3Perfect Critical (Combat)
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon which can't have a critical multiplier better than X2
From a math standpoint there's no reason to include these two requirements. A 20/x3 weapon like a longbow has the same overall bonus to damage as a 19-20/x2 weapon like a shortsword, and a 20/x4 weapon like a scythe has the same overall bonus to damage as an 18-20/x2 weapon like a scimitar.
**warning, math to follow**
To see why, you just need to break down the total average damage on an attack a bit. Your total damage is equal to (chance to hit normally)*(damage) + (chance to crit)*(multiplier)*(damage). You can break chance to hit normally into (chance to hit-(chance to crit)) and chance to crit down in to (chance to threaten*chance to hit). Write the whole thing out (with some variables to make it a bit easier to read) and you have:
H = Chance to Hit (as a decimal, so a 50% chance to hit would be .5)
C = Crit Range (as a decimal, so a 19-20 is .1 (10%) for instance, 18-20 is .15, etc.)
M = Crit Multiplier
dmg = base damage
((H-(C*H))*dmg) + (C*H*M*dmg)
There are some terms in common, so you can move base damage, for example, to the outside.
dmg*[(H-(C*H))+(C*H*M)]
then do the same with base chance to Hit
[dmg*H]*[(1-C)+(C*M)]
Base damage and chance to hit we don't care about for this, just the amount that they are multiplied by crit chance and multiplier. If you solve the right side for various weapons you find the following:
20/x2 weapons = (1-.05)+(.05*2) = .95 + .1 = 1.05 (+5% damage)
19-20/x2 weapons = (1-.1)+(.1*2) = .9 + .2 = 1.1 (+10% damage)
20/x3 weapons = (1-.05)+(.05*3) = .95 + .15 = 1.1 (+10% damage)
18-20/x2 weapons = (1-.15)+(.15*2) = .85 + .3 = 1.15 (+15% damage)
20/x4 weapons = (1-.05)+(.05*4) = .95 + .2 = 1.15 (+15% damage)
The percentage bonus to damage scales at the same rate once you apply improved critical (or these feats).
18-20 weapon with imp. crit
15-20/x2 = (1-.3)+(.3*2) = .7 + .6 = 1.3 (+30% damage)
20/x4 weapon with imp. crit
19-20/x4 = (1-.1)+(.1*4) = .9 + .4 = 1.3 (+30% damage)
Because they scale at exactly the same rate, there's really no reason to restrict this to just high crit range weapons and not high crit multiplier weapons.
From a math standpoint there's no reason to include these two requirements. A 20/x3 weapon like a longbow has the same overall bonus to damage as a 19-20/x2 weapon like a shortsword, and a 20/x4 weapon like a scythe has the same overall bonus to damage as an 18-20/x2 weapon like a scimitar.
I included these requirements because I didn't want every fighter to use a scythe. Let me explain: the core weapons are balanced somehow, i.e. there are weapons with a high threat range (Scimitar, ...) but with a low multiplier, and there are weapons with a high multiplier (Scythe, ...) but a small threat range. Now, whith introducing my feats, all 'optimizing' players would choose one of the X4 crit weapons and get the better threat range from the feats. Thats the situation I wanted to avoid with these requirements.
I included these requirements because I didn't want every fighter to use a scythe. Let me explain: the core weapons are balanced somehow, i.e. there are weapons with a high threat range (Scimitar, ...) but with a low multiplier, and there are weapons with a high multiplier (Scythe, ...) but a small threat range. Now, whith introducing my feats, all 'optimizing' players would choose one of the X4 crit weapons and get the better threat range from the feats. Thats the situation I wanted to avoid with these requirements.The point is that a falchion and a scythe do exactly the same amount of average damage, with or without crit-increasing feats, so there's no reason to limit the feats to one or the other.
You were right if there wasn't the cap of a maximum threat range of 15-20 in my feats. But with that cap in place, a 15-20/X2 weapon deals less average damage than a 15-20/X4 weapon.
Of course it is up to discussion whether there really should be a cap to the threat range. I for one think that a critical hit shouldn't be near-automatic, and that it may be unbalancing to allow a max threat range higher than 15-20.
If you ever get these to a version that you like, why not post them on the Pathfinder Database?
I don't want to nitpick too much, since your conclusions are sound, but it's technically... ((H-(C*H))*dmg) + (C*H^2*M*dmg) because you need to hit AND confirm the crit.
Incorrect. You can see this most obviously if you look at an extreme example.
A character with a crit range of 20 (5%) attacking a foe for which they need a 20 to hit (5% again) would have a 1 in 8000 chance of critting according to your formula (crit * hit^2), it's easy enough to see the odds are actually 1 in 400 though (two twenties in a row, 1/20 * 1/20)
You were right if there wasn't the cap of a maximum threat range of 15-20 in my feats. But with that cap in place, a 15-20/X2 weapon deals less average damage than a 15-20/X4 weapon.
Of course it is up to discussion whether there really should be a cap to the threat range. I for one think that a critical hit shouldn't be near-automatic, and that it may be unbalancing to allow a max threat range higher than 15-20.
With these twin requirements (no more than a x2 multiplier, and no more than a 15-20 threat range) the only weapons that get the full effect from the feats are simple 20/x2 weapons. That seems.. odd.. from a roleplay perspective. Potentially, your maximum benefits would be (according to weapon type):
20/x4......19-20/x4 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
20/x3......18-20/x3 (+30% damage w/ two feats)
20/x2......17-20/x2 (+20% damage w/ three feats)
19-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ two feats)
18-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
Without the limits the caps would be:
20/x4......17-20/x4 (+60% damage)
20/x3......17-20/x3 (+40% damage)
20/x2......17-20/x2 (+20% damage)
19-20/x2...13-20/x2 (+40% damage)
18-20/x2...09-20/x2 (+60% damage)
(Actually that's not _that_ bad looking back on it)
...
20/x4......19-20/x4 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
20/x3......18-20/x3 (+30% damage w/ two feats)
20/x2......17-20/x2 (+20% damage w/ three feats)
19-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ two feats)
18-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
...
In that calculation, you assumed the variant of Greter / Perfect Critical that increases the threat range by 1 instead of doubling it ("Non-Doubling Version"), and it seems to be balanced.
But I am still interested in the values of the original version ("Doubling Version") as a comparison:
20/x4......19-20/x4 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
20/x3......17-20/x3 (+40% damage w/ two feats)
20/x2......15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ three feats)
19-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ two feats)
18-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
We see that in the Non-Doubling Version, 20/x2 weapons profit below average despite costing 3 feats, in the Doubling Version they are on average, but 20/x3 weapons profit above average although costing only 2 feats.
Considering this, I would prefer the Doubling Version, so that wielders of 20/x2 weapons are not too much in a disadvantage.
In that calculation, you assumed the variant of Greter / Perfect Critical that increases the threat range by 1 instead of doubling it ("Non-Doubling Version"), and it seems to be balanced....
20/x4......19-20/x4 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
20/x3......18-20/x3 (+30% damage w/ two feats)
20/x2......17-20/x2 (+20% damage w/ three feats)
19-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ two feats)
18-20/x2...15-20/x2 (+30% damage w/ one feat)
...
Umm, no, that's with the doubling version. You might want to read the section on multipliers from the PRD.
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.
So doubled once is twice the original range, doubled again is three times the original range, and doubled thrice is four times the original range. Essentially each doubling only applies as much "extra" range as the original doubling. If you intended these feats to increase the threat range of weapons by more than that amount, you might consider rewording them.
I think the point is to make non standard weapons viable at a high feat cost, and I admire the work. E.G. a club based fighter.
Yes, that was my intention with those feats.
If you want to play a fighter inspired by some (possibly historic) archetype, like the greek hoplite (shortspear and heavy shield), or the retarius gladiator (trident and net), or ..., you have no chance to reach the same power level as for example a two-hand elven curve blade wielder, because the whole Critical Focus feat tree is relatively useless for you.
What exactly does "Disarm Trick" do? All weapons can be used for disarming, just some of them give a +2 when they do it.
So is it basically giving an extra +2 to disarm with that weapon?
It's not like Tripping or Brace, where only some weapons are capable of even performing the maneuver.
What exactly does "Disarm Trick" do? All weapons can be used for disarming, just some of them give a +2 when they do it.
So is it basically giving an extra +2 to disarm with that weapon?
It's not like Tripping or Brace, where only some weapons are capable of even performing the maneuver.
Yes, that was the intention. Maybe Disarm Trick is underpowered for a feat.
My intention was that there should be no way to
- achieve a threat range better than 15-20 with a X2 crit weapon
- achieve a threat range better than 17-20 with a X3 crit weapon
- achieve a threat range better than 19-20 with a X4 crit weapon
So the best weapons are now those who start with a low range and a low multiplier, but that do massive amounts of damage?
You have to take that into consideration, too.
No, the system is okay as it is: You can get a high range, or a high multiplier, or a large damage die. You have one weapon that is great in one area and improve the others to the max with feats.
So what idiot would choose a falchion? You only get 2d4 with 15-20/x2. The greatsword is 2d6 with 15-20/x2 with some extra feat.
So what idiot would choose a falchion? You only get 2d4 with 15-20/x2. The greatsword is 2d6 with 15-20/x2 with some extra feat.
the one that wants that feat for something else?
... You might want to read the section on multipliers from the PRD.
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.So doubled once is twice the original range, doubled again is three times the original range, and doubled thrice is four times the original range. Essentially each doubling only applies as much "extra" range as the original doubling. If you intended these feats to increase the threat range of weapons by more than that amount, you might consider rewording them.
Yes, I will clearify that in the feat description. I want the multiplying to be an exception from the normal multiplying rule.
...
No, the system is okay as it is: You can get a high range, or a high multiplier, or a large damage die. ...
My concern is that considering weapon choice for a fighter and corrsponding fighter feats, there are no equivalent feats to the Critical Focus feat tree if you decide to specialize in a high multiplier or large damage dice weapon instead of a high crit range weapon.
(The Vital Strike feat chain is especially useful for large damage dice weapons, but only usable on standard attacks).
...
So the best weapons are now those who start with a low range and a low multiplier, but that do massive amounts of damage?You have to take that into consideration, too.
...
Ok, how about:
Attacks made with one weapon leave vicious wounds.
Prerequisite: Weapon Specialization with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one weapon you have Weapon Specialization for.
The damage you deal with this weapon increases by one step on
the following list, as if the weapon’s size had increased by
one category. Damage dice increase as follows:
1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows:
1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
Possibly continue with "Greater Weapon Attack", "Superior Weapon Attack" and "Perfect Weapon Attack".
The problem with all the math on this thread is that it neglects the Pathfinder critical feats. In a combat situation, inflicting blindness counts for a LOT more than just a bit of extra damage. Those feats finally provide a reason for the non-stacking of keen weapons and Improved Critical.
The problem with all the math on this thread is that it neglects the Pathfinder critical feats. In a combat situation, inflicting blindness counts for a LOT more than just a bit of extra damage. Those feats finally provide a reason for the non-stacking of keen weapons and Improved Critical.
The Critcal Feats were why I introduced the new feats: to make the Critical Feats a viable option for characters which chose to specialize in a "non-optimal" weapon with a low threat range.
I like the Trick Feats as well. :)
**warning, math to follow**
H = Chance to Hit (as a decimal, so a 50% chance to hit would be .5)
C = Crit Range (as a decimal, so a 19-20 is .1 (10%) for instance, 18-20 is .15, etc.)M = Crit Multiplierdmg = base damage((H-(C*H))*dmg) + (C*H*M*dmg)dmg*[(H-(C*H))+(C*H*M)][dmg*H]*[(1-C)+(C*M)](+15% damage)
MY BRAIN!!! *explodes*
MY BRAIN!!! *explodes***warning, math to follow**
H = Chance to Hit (as a decimal, so a 50% chance to hit would be .5)
C = Crit Range (as a decimal, so a 19-20 is .1 (10%) for instance, 18-20 is .15, etc.)M = Crit Multiplierdmg = base damage((H-(C*H))*dmg) + (C*H*M*dmg)dmg*[(H-(C*H))+(C*H*M)][dmg*H]*[(1-C)+(C*M)](+15% damage)
OK, clearly we need to stop before we get to weapon relative lengths and arc of traverse compared to armor thickness and rate of change due to wind-speed, then.
Noted. :)
(Flying skull fragments are reality's way of telling you to be a BSF.)
I like the Trick Feats as well. :)
MY BRAIN!!! *explodes***warning, math to follow**
H = Chance to Hit (as a decimal, so a 50% chance to hit would be .5)
C = Crit Range (as a decimal, so a 19-20 is .1 (10%) for instance, 18-20 is .15, etc.)M = Crit Multiplierdmg = base damage((H-(C*H))*dmg) + (C*H*M*dmg)dmg*[(H-(C*H))+(C*H*M)][dmg*H]*[(1-C)+(C*M)](+15% damage)
*ducks*
Well, the math has its use. This way we can avoid to create some new "cheesy" combination of feats/weapons. I don't want my feats to lead to another small set of "optimal" weapons, where every character who specializes in other weapons (for flavor) has no chance to even remotely compare with the "optimized" build.