Note also that you could also assign values at random, or determine randomly each hit based on their likelihood. If you use this system you will find that level appropriate encounters will often be deflected by whatever you have added last. Since these are often temporary buffs or rings, followed by shields, that seems more pleasing to me, given that a blow deflected by powerful armor will often ding the armor up or bludgeon the wearer- this avoids having to hand wave the hand waveable stuff, and also gives more face time to the efforts of the friendly caster who warded the PC, or the PC's choice of shield over two handed weapon, while still crediting his choice of nice armor pretty often.
Not a terrible proposition my friend. appreciate the advice.
OP: I still feel the problem is under-defined.
I know you don't like the state things have gotten to out of a sense of propriety, but is it causing actual table problems? Are the players competitive? Do some feel left out? Are they cutting down your challenges too quickly and getting bored?
What specifically is the problem, beyond the fact that this character has sick crits all the time?
If there isn't any specific problem, you're probably doing a good job of calibrating and nothing needs to change. At 15th level, these PCs are approaching some kind of end game. I would just play it out until the end of whatever plot arc you are on, then put these characters away and start fresh.
|
OK, I am curious.
17-20 x4.
What did you give him that has this? and was it errataed?
Most x4 weapons (all that I can think of) are 20 only. Throw in Improved Critical which I am assuming and he goes to 19-20 x4. Keen does not stack with that.
All I can think of is Minotaur Greathammer (MM4) and wasn't that erratad or declared an error? Other than the crit range it matches the Goliath greathammer.
In fact the Minotaurs using it in there stat block only crit on a 20 not 19-20.
I was wondering that myself.
OP: I still feel the problem is under-defined.
I know you don't like the state things have gotten to out of a sense of propriety, but is it causing actual table problems? Are the players competitive? Do some feel left out? Are they cutting down your challenges too quickly and getting bored?
What specifically is the problem, beyond the fact that this character has sick crits all the time?
If there isn't any specific problem, you're probably doing a good job of calibrating and nothing needs to change. At 15th level, these PCs are approaching some kind of end game. I would just play it out until the end of whatever plot arc you are on, then put these characters away and start fresh.
Its the fact that I feel like encounters arent challenging enough because he has a weapon that crits like a mother.
The weapon was a sharash from 3.5
If monstrous strength is also part of the problem there is always Ray of Enfeeblement.
Losing even a few points makes a big difference to damage on two handed weapons.
I would also like to know how he has a x4 weapon that crits on a 17-20.
The weapon was a sharash from 3.5
Eberron Campaign Setting Errata
Page 120: Weapons TableThe Talenta sharrash should have a critical threat range of 19–20/x2, not 19–20/x4.
And really, if they're fighting your dragon and it takes a few crits and is about to die before you're ready to, just keep it going. Guy crits, yells out "156 damage!" you nod and write something down behind your DM screen, then call next in initiative. The players don't know how many HP it has. When it's time for the dragon to go down, it goes down. It's your story and you shouldn't let a chart of numbers tell you how it plays out. The fighter contributes (significantly!) to the fight, but everyone else has a chance to chip in as well. Maybe give a nice gory description of the killing blow where the fighter's bizarre halfling scythe slips through an eye socket and lobotomizes the dragon, and as it falls in a heap the rogue leaps atop it and daintily presses his dagger into it's back, claiming victory.
And really, if they're fighting your dragon and it takes a few crits and is about to die before you're ready to, just keep it going. Guy crits, yells out "156 damage!" you nod and write something down behind your DM screen, then call next in initiative. The players don't know how many HP it has. When it's time for the dragon to go down, it goes down.
I don't know about you but I, and other people I've played with, quickly become unamused with a creature still standing after having taken thousands of damage.
I don't know about you but I, and other people I've played with, quickly become unamused with a creature still standing after having taken thousands of damage.
There's a difference between extending the fight a round or two so everyone can contribute, and whatever was happening in your games with multi-thousand-HP monsters.
I don't know about you but I, and other people I've played with, quickly become unamused with a creature still standing after having taken thousands of damage.There's a difference between extending the fight a round or two so everyone can contribute, and whatever was happening in your games with multi-thousand-HP monsters.
How long are you going to extend to make everyone feel like they contributed when one person is dealing 200 damage a round? After a couple rounds, the creature has already taken around 600 (at least probably). If some one is doing 200 damage an attack and you are doing 40, you are NEVER going to feel like you contributed and it is just an insult to everyone's intelligence and their HP to arbitrarily extend the life of the monster.
|
If monstrous strength is also part of the problem there is always Ray of Enfeeblement.
Losing even a few points makes a big difference to damage on two handed weapons.
I would also like to know how he has a x4 weapon that crits on a 17-20.
Granted this is a 20th level thing, but a 20th level weapon master Fighter can have a 15-20/x4 weapon a few times per day...
Granted this is a 20th level thing, but a 20th level weapon master Fighter can have a 15-20/x4 weapon a few times per day...If monstrous strength is also part of the problem there is always Ray of Enfeeblement.
Losing even a few points makes a big difference to damage on two handed weapons.
I would also like to know how he has a x4 weapon that crits on a 17-20.
3 times a day at 19th level isn't really the same thing as all the time though.
|
|
3 times a day at 19th level isn't really the same thing as all the time though.Granted this is a 20th level thing, but a 20th level weapon master Fighter can have a 15-20/x4 weapon a few times per day...If monstrous strength is also part of the problem there is always Ray of Enfeeblement.
Losing even a few points makes a big difference to damage on two handed weapons.
I would also like to know how he has a x4 weapon that crits on a 17-20.
True, but when it's not x4, it is still a 15-20/x3 weapon. Which is still pretty nasty. Actually, with the PF Crit feats, I'd say it's a little worse.
The weapon was a sharash from 3.5Eberron Campaign Setting Errata
Page 120: Weapons Table
The Talenta sharrash should have a critical threat range of 19–20/x2, not 19–20/x4.And really, if they're fighting your dragon and it takes a few crits and is about to die before you're ready to, just keep it going. Guy crits, yells out "156 damage!" you nod and write something down behind your DM screen, then call next in initiative. The players don't know how many HP it has. When it's time for the dragon to go down, it goes down. It's your story and you shouldn't let a chart of numbers tell you how it plays out. The fighter contributes (significantly!) to the fight, but everyone else has a chance to chip in as well. Maybe give a nice gory description of the killing blow where the fighter's bizarre halfling scythe slips through an eye socket and lobotomizes the dragon, and as it falls in a heap the rogue leaps atop it and daintily presses his dagger into it's back, claiming victory.
Wow the errata totally escaped the two of us. That makes perfect sense now though.
But is it fair to downgrade an item this guy chose to specialize in if the erratad version is something he might not have chose to specialize in? that seems pretty janky to me..
And no not everything is immune to critical hits at high levels, and if EVERYTHING they fight is that is slapping the character that spent time to plan to be good at something in the face for no other reason than he planned. To me, that is not being a good DM/GM.
The truth is I just wanted to find a way to make criticals less of a problem without making it seem like im picking on him.
Concealment is good, fortification could serve a purpose, and strength reducers are not a bad idea. Just as long as everything he faces doesnt have fortification im ok with that
But is it fair to downgrade an item this guy chose to specialize in if the erratad version is something he might not have chose to specialize in? that seems pretty janky to me..
You switched over to PF, and probably had to adjust some things, so I would let him "re-spec" and switch his build over to a similar but rules-legal configuration. His +2 sharrash becomes a +2 whatever-he-uses-now, swap a few feats and he's all set.
Everything being immune to critical hits is the name of high level play. It's not picking on him when he picked something with an expiration date shorter than the campaign.
And even when they do work, critical hits are quite insignificant in the long term. He picked on himself by choosing an ineffective specialization.
Please explain. Who's immune to criticals? Pit Fiends? Balor? Linnorm? Dragons? Corporeal Undeads? Solar? High level NPCs (barring fortification)? Kraken? Marilith?
Said this, if the player crits and deals damage, just let him have fun defeating the monster. If it's his special move, you cannot frustrate him, IMO (increasing HP or "cheating" in other ways).
About the chance of it happening, errata about crit threat range of the weapon has been already adressed... so nothing to say about it.
Before I respond to this, I would like it translated into English.
I'm pretty sure you can try it out. You are such a kind person...
AAAAND attacking my english does not make your argument more valid.
Or repeating false statement more pleasant for those who read and play the game. Stop writing false statements. Stop it.
PF has creatures previously not vulnerable to critical hits vulnerable now. High level meleers has critical feats. Criticals are a relevant part of high level game.
Everything being immune to critical hits is the name of high level play.
I would also like support for this statement.
Critical hits are in no way relevant at any level, critical immunity or no critical immunity. Everyone snagging heavy fort just gets the message across real clear like that that no longer works. As such anything critical based is sucker bait, and yes that includes your silly little trap feats.So far, I have only seen one person on this entire forum intelligent enough to understand why that is. But do feel free to be the second.
Not relevant... why?
Seriously.. what's the fun for you playing this game?
And stop with you absolute statements and with you dismissive tone, PLEASE.
Critical hits are in no way relevant at any level, critical immunity or no critical immunity.
That's a pretty bold statement. Do you have any facts, or even arguments, to support it?
As always, you assume that everybody plays like you do.
First and foremost, not everybody wants a DPS race. People can enjoy their x4 criticals or their scimitars, and the chance of their critical hits "procs". Your math ignore completely the FUN (it's a game, remember?) behind roll and see the high result.
Stun an enemy d4 rounds could matter a lot at high levels. Fighter can move and auto-crit at high levels, too.
You again assume that everybody plays the group as a SWAT. It's fun, but some stories (for a more storytelling gamestyle) imply PC duel with enemies, being separated for a while, and such. A sort of "control" effect can be very useful in this case.
The mere "sucker bait" term implies a view of the game so competitive to be disturbing. This could be a matter of tastes, but the way you overlook people with different styles makes it an actual PROBLEM because undermines the way you relate with them. See the thread, and see your answer that is essentially "the problem does not exist because critical hits don't matter" absolutely not relvant for the discussion.
Finally, your last sentence completely invalidate all things you said. Avoid being dead in 1 round instead of 2 means that criticals matter. Combat is fast in this game. :D
Few x2 or a x4 CAN completely twist a combat. Crit Happens. Get Over It. :D
Let me introduce Houserule #
13. If a creature was immune to critical hits and SA damage in 3.5, it still is.
Now, there are one of two possible outcomes here:
1: You do not need the critical hits to DPS down the enemy fast enough. You completely wasted your resources getting something that is not at all helpful to you.
2: You do need the critical hits to DPS down the enemy fast enough. Which means whenever you don't get them, you die. As the chance of not getting them is 70% at the lowest, clearly this is a losing proposition even in the short term and especially in the long term.
You do realize that most crit-builds attack more than once, right?
Critical hits can be (and are) effectively built into DPS. Characters with high crit ranges use them effectively.You're welcome to label them as "sucker bait", but your assertion is as empty of facts as your earlier assertion that all high-level monsters are immune to crits was empty of facts.
|
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this (didn't seem like it) but the Heavy Fortification property no longer grants 100% protection. It only grants 75% protection. This means that only natural (from creature type) and cap-stone-based immunities exist (AFAIK).
As far as I'd be concerned, even as a crit-build character, go for it and have most enemies have Light Fort, many have Medium and the big-bads have Heavy*. It's not 100% immunities, so I still have the chance to get lucky and look awesome, but it still slows me down a little. It is high level play now and many creatures have learned to put up the necessary defenses for survival.
The complete immunity is something I'd reserve for a final BBEG (as in, the final one pre campaign retirement).
*I'd actually recommend using the "resistance" % as a number to reduce the extra damage by, as opposed to a % to negate it. As in, if he normally does 48, and his critical would thus be an extra 144, he would do X% of 144 less on a crit than normal. An enemy with medium fortification would only take 120 (instead of 192) for example. This means that every crit matters without reducing the power of the resistance.
And then you're still relying on the unreliable. Which means you still die any time that doesn't work out.
Even if your crit chance was 95%, that's still a 5% chance you don't.
... which apparently means that, by your standards, anything that requires an attack roll or allows a saving throw is "unreliable".
If that's your criterion for what's okay to build a character on, I'm glad I know better.
Way to misquote a deliberately unrealistic example.And then you're still relying on the unreliable. Which means you still die any time that doesn't work out.
Even if your crit chance was 95%, that's still a 5% chance you don't.
... which apparently means that, by your standards, anything that requires an attack roll or allows a saving throw is "unreliable".
If that's your criterion for what's okay to build a character on, I'm glad I know better.
But it proved my point handily -- you're not actually doing the math. You've made it clear you don't care about the math. The fact that critting can work reliably enough to factor into the math along with every other ability we have that works probabilistically (pretty much all of them in this game) negates your attempt to dismiss crit builds because "you won't always roll a crit".
A 17-20 crit range with five attacks per round averages a critical threat every round. Refusing to factor that damage into your calculations is bad math.And refusing to consider enhancing your crit as a DPS enhancement is bad logic.
That's also not how statistics work,
It's exactly how statistics work -- it's called "expected damage". And we're talking about reasonably-frequent spikes, not ridiculously condensed ones.
Again, I'm glad I don't have to confine myself to builds that you approve, or I'd miss out on a lot of effective and fun builds.|
|
And again. You either need it or you don't. If you don't it's useless 100% of the time. If you do it's useless and will lead to your death a third of the time.
Learn what sample sizes mean and get back to me.
I'm afraid I'll have to agree with AvalonXQ on that "you don't know jack about statistics" thing. It's not about sample size here. The data is easily calculable due to the finite quantity of results, hence "sample size" is irrelevant (it is only relevant in real-world information where results are not finite in number nor do they have easily calculatable probabilities).
Since the numbers are finite you can use simple math to calculate the average damage that will occur by giving each possible result a probability-weighed share in an average. This average damage will not tell you how much you'll do, but the higher you have the better your odds of doing better damage, which should play out in the long run.
Doesn't matter if you want it or not. It's what you get, because you're playing D&D as a non caster. There are also people that have fun when being beaten with whips and chains. That's still assault, even if they think it's fun. Which is a giant non sequitor anyways.
You are comparing masochism with playing a melee. As avalonXQ said above, I'm very glad to do not confine myself on builds you approve.
I find hilarious that your gamestyle makes you unable to play meleers, BUT you overlook people that enjoy them as doing it wrong. See below.
So you have fun failing. The rest of us would like to keep a character from session to session.
You seriously consider melee as a non-option? Please, stop it. Stop tell lies on power attack. Stop lies on rogues. Stop lies on criticals.
Stop basing your arguments on false assumptions and state them as facts.
YOU are unable to play whole classes and assume everybody play like you. YOU fail this game.
It would if it had some sort of reliable usage. Since it's dependent on both a low success chance and enemies being stupid, you won't.
I don't follow the reasoning. So fail a save is stupid?
Previous posts already adressed how hard you failed probability.
No, it's called 'seeing a 3.x product as a 3.x product'. Sucker bait was introduced intentionally to reward system mastery. Let me repeat that so it sinks in. Your reward for understanding the system properly is to not make a gimp character. Sucker bait was even deliberately baited well. And from hearing the designers around here talk, it's clear their design goals are much the same. They call it by different words, but when you have x cool features and 0 effective ones, you've been sucker baited.
Understand the system properly means that you don't use knives as two handed weapons because there are battleaxes. Does not means that every thing that is not the super duper optimal choice is trash.
And, you are putting in the mouth of designers precise meanings.
Because you cannot understand the difference between them being used against the enemy by you (where they don't matter, and are a waste) and being used by the enemy against you (where you randomly go from surviving a turn at low HP to not surviving a turn). But of course you knew that. You were just desperately searching for any way out.
Do you realize that this is valid on the opposite too? If I stun or crit "x4" an enemy, combats turns differently. Why in the nine hells this should be valid one side only?
O_o are you serious?
I removed some posts.
Flag it and move on, folks.
I think it sad that the game has boiled down to who does more damage, whether by spell or weapon, for so many folks :(
|
The weapon was a sharash from 3.5Eberron Campaign Setting Errata
Page 120: Weapons Table
The Talenta sharrash should have a critical threat range of 19–20/x2, not 19–20/x4.And really, if they're fighting your dragon and it takes a few crits and is about to die before you're ready to, just keep it going. Guy crits, yells out "156 damage!" you nod and write something down behind your DM screen, then call next in initiative. The players don't know how many HP it has. When it's time for the dragon to go down, it goes down. It's your story and you shouldn't let a chart of numbers tell you how it plays out. The fighter contributes (significantly!) to the fight, but everyone else has a chance to chip in as well. Maybe give a nice gory description of the killing blow where the fighter's bizarre halfling scythe slips through an eye socket and lobotomizes the dragon, and as it falls in a heap the rogue leaps atop it and daintily presses his dagger into it's back, claiming victory.
Wow the errata totally escaped the two of us. That makes perfect sense now though.
But is it fair to downgrade an item this guy chose to specialize in if the erratad version is something he might not have chose to specialize in? that seems pretty janky to me..
And no not everything is immune to critical hits at high levels, and if EVERYTHING they fight is that is slapping the character that spent time to plan to be good at something in the face for no other reason than he planned. To me, that is not being a good DM/GM.
The truth is I just wanted to find a way to make criticals less of a problem without making it seem like im picking on him.
Concealment is good, fortification could serve a purpose, and strength reducers are not a bad idea. Just as long as everything he faces doesnt have fortification im ok with that
Yes,it is fair to implement Errata.
If your player based his entire RP experience around critting with his weapon, forgive me, but... He really needs to grow as a Role-Playing gamer. And this, from a guy who loves combat (Me).I have actually spent the last little bit reading this thread,and I feel your pain. We all let 'mistakes' slip through our DM-Grasp from time to time. If all someone wants to do is do as much damage as possible,without care for the story (I assume that you work to make a great story, etc...),perhaps WoW is a better fit for the player?
That's the sort of conversations that i hear from friends who scoff at traditional RPGs who play MMORGs... 'Man, my DPS is...blah blah.'
Getting back on track: Errata is there for a reason. A mistake was made, and someone (Official) caught it. You have been given a lot of cool ideas from the folks here (And BTW, giving Dragons magic items is a very old idea...A Dragon magazine article suggested it for a cool twist, way back in the 80s. Don't feel like you are Cheesing them. They might even like/respect the innovation). You don't even need to feel bad...it was a mistake, not a direct DM-Fiat call.
If you feel bad,let him switch his feats/etc around a bit. Besides, if you are going to play PF (Suggested, for reason that most here will agree with),such a weapon wouldn't have the same stats anyways.
believe me, I played a Weapon Master with a Gladius, Stacking Imp Crit/Keen (Vorpal to boot) back in 3.0 in a one-shot 16th Level game...watching the poor DMs face was funny, but... well, Yeah...just Yeah. I needed a Cohort, just to collect the heads.
If converting to PF: Explain to him that there are way cooler options than a boatload of damage, with the Crit Feats, as well as the awesome Paizo Crit deck. Combat gets a lot more interesting...heck,my players even cheer for the Fumbles (Yes, ESPECIALLY for their own Fumbles...funny lot).
Good luck,
-Uriel
PS: Just so I contribute to 'ideas'...Telekenesis/Levitate works wonders on Melee monsters... nothing says frustration like a Tank that can't reach the enemy.
|
|
I think it sad that the game has boiled down to who does more damage, whether by spell or weapon, for so many folks :(Well for non casters it is. For casters you're best off doing as little damage as possible.
I will agree, but in the context of "optimal" play.
Myself and a couple others I've met have much more fun with sub-optimal play because it's more of a challenge. I don't care if others are more optimal, because we'll find creative ways to fill the gap. Plus, having optimal characters means even more challenge as the DM throws out more powerful creatures to compensate ^.^"You may have a wand of fireball, but I have a wand of firestorm!" </bluff>*
*This one has actually worked in game before. My DM hates me.