Ok, so here's the pitch: I'm talking about doing the whole Keen and Improved Critical stacking thing.
That's the premise - not a fan, don't bring up old issues.
Here's my new take, though - forget about the mechanics of exactly what form the stacking will take for now (I'll solidify that later): what if Keen was not a minimal enhancement?
Now ... think about this in more game effects and descriptive effects. Descriptively, "Keen" weapons are supposed to be super-sharp and specially enchanted to "cut better" than other weapons, no? Mechanically, it's represented by increasing the critical range (ie: your skill and battle luck still matter in landing a strike, BUT your chances of landing pretty devastating strikes goes up).
One of the primary counter points of "don't stack" revolves around the big range weapons going from say 12-20 or something (worst case scenario, no?).
The criticism is that "critical" loses it's special quality if you are landing crits darn near all the time for a measly little +1 enchantment and 1 feat investment (it is one, right? firing from memory at the moment)
My counter here is that what if "keen" wasn't a "measly" little enchantment? What if it *is* a significant enchantment? I mean, descriptively, doesn't a super-sharp sword specifically enchanted to cut at an atomic level *sound* a hell of a lot more powerful and dangerous than just a +1?
Wouldn't that, if stack-capable, be worthy of *at least* a +3 enchantment cost?
I think the problem with crit-stacking isn't the # range that lands crits - that's actually supported by the descriptive text. What *I'm* looking at is the cheap cost of Keen currently that makes this a very cheap item.
As a low-level spell, however, it *does* sort of make sense ... provided it's a short duration (Keen Weapon pretty much is a short duration as well). It doesn't mean that the low level spell required to make permanent on an item is likewise a *minimal* effort to take hold.
So ... the thought here is to change the cost of Keen into something more significant, BUT in doing so allow it to stack with the Improved Critical feat.
Thoughts?
No. Either 12-20 is too good. Even at a +3 price I would be willing to spend the money if I wanted a crit-focused character, and normally I do. I am pretty good at saving money by getting just what I need to barely get by. I am sure other players are also, so getting the gold for it would not be too hard.
If the +3 was a deterrent(as far as making people not want it) that just means it is overpriced which kind of defeats the point of even having it, king of like high priced SR items.
The price for any ability should reflect it's value. In other words the player should be willing to buy it if he happens to have that much gold. If he has the gold, but scoffs at the price then the price needs to come down
I agree the threat-range should be limited - critical hits lose their sparkle if there are too many of them. BUT Improved Critical didn't just used to increase threat range, it used to be an either/or to improve the damage multiplier instead.
So what if the 'stacking' of Improved Critical and keen doubled your threat range and increased your damage multiplier by one? Then your rapier still only threatens on a 15-20, but now is 15-20/x3 with both Imrpoved Critical and keen, while with either alone remains 15-20/x2, and without either is 18-20/x2. Keen could stay at +1 value this way, as well. Only difference is, it stays useful if you have Improved Critical.
I agree the threat-range should be limited - critical hits lose their sparkle if there are too many of them. BUT Improved Critical didn't just used to increase threat range, it used to be an either/or to improve the damage multiplier instead.
So what if the 'stacking' of Improved Critical and keen doubled your threat range and increased your damage multiplier by one? Then your rapier still only threatens on a 15-20, but now is 15-20/x3 with both Imrpoved Critical and keen, while with either alone remains 15-20/x2, and without either is 18-20/x2. Keen could stay at +1 value this way, as well. Only difference is, it stays useful if you have Improved Critical.
A fighter with a scythe that does 19-20/X6 or even if you dont get to 20 I would be more than happy to take one of the x3 weapons to 19-20/x4. Most things don't survive x4 crits in combination from the rest of the attacks that would be gained from that round. I also admit I have done no math to see how it works on average so it may not be as bad as I think it would be.
A fighter with a scythe that does 19-20/X6 or even if you dont get to 20 I would be more than happy to take one of the x3 weapons to 19-20/x4. Most things don't survive x4 crits in combination from the rest of the attacks that would be gained from that round. I also admit I have done no math to see how it works on average so it may not be as bad as I think it would be.I agree the threat-range should be limited - critical hits lose their sparkle if there are too many of them. BUT Improved Critical didn't just used to increase threat range, it used to be an either/or to improve the damage multiplier instead.
So what if the 'stacking' of Improved Critical and keen doubled your threat range and increased your damage multiplier by one? Then your rapier still only threatens on a 15-20, but now is 15-20/x3 with both Imrpoved Critical and keen, while with either alone remains 15-20/x2, and without either is 18-20/x2. Keen could stay at +1 value this way, as well. Only difference is, it stays useful if you have Improved Critical.
Scythe would be 19-20/x5 with both keen and Improved Critical if this system is used. To be honest if most things don't survive x4 criticals then x5 won't make a lot of difference. I have crunched numbers before and increasing the critical multiplier does not increase the average damage as much as increasing the threat rating does.
Consider: doubling the threat range doubles the average additional damage inflicted by critical hits. Increasing the threat rating by 1 for scythe increases the average damage from critical hits by 25%. So 19-20/x5 will do far less average damage than 17-20/x4 from the critical hits, and the same holds true of a 20/x3 weapon, which goes up to 19-20/x4. What it does mean is that those critical hits will be more devastating, yes. Critical hits are meant to be devastating, though. The biggest proportional differences will be in the x2 weapons (which increase average damage by 50%). In short, a rapier gets more proportionally out of this combo than a scythe or battle axe.
Pondering seriously this line of thinking...
What about this: a keen weapon (whether by spell effect or enhancement) increases the critical multiplier by 1. Period.
The Improved Critical feat does what its name implies; that is, doubles the critical threat range. Period.
Then, with both in place, both sides of the critical equation are affected. Ex.: a keen longsword has a critical of 19-20/x3; a wielder of a longsword and the Imp. Crit. feat has a critical of 17-20/x2; a wielder of a keen longsword and the Imp. Crit. feat has a critical of 17-20/x3. Which is basically what Dabbler said...
Each by itself is about the right price for its power. Combined, they don't actually stack at all, but rather complement each other.
EDIT: bold face above are edits in consideration of Kerym Ammath's comment below, which, really, is better.
Hmm ... *almost* went entirely in the wrong direction given I said that mechanics of what it would look like would be a secondary concern, BUT ... man - that's a DAMN fine idea in general!
So, Dabbler, Malachi, thanks for positing this thing forth!
On the +3 change being expensive, but achievable - that's the point - achievable by a higher level (ie: one that's held onto the loot or whatever) character and that *would* be worth the investment.
However ... given the pure simplicity of the suggestion above - to have one feature key off of one weapon quality (crit range) and the other key off of another weapon quality (damage multiplier) = it's a whole hell of a lot more simple in play.
I just like it!
I'm sold and will be implementing as soon as it comes up in game.
EDIT: I mean hell ... with the "magical" keen being the damage multiplier that +1 keen enchantment is useful as is the 1st level Keen Weapon spell - it'll be useful for the life of the spell (regardless of *who* the target is compared to current use where it's a waste if used on someone that already has the thing in place).
That's just a beautiful idea guys! Thanks!!!
>-D
I have been playing with the stacking problem for a while now and so far my solution was to limit how large a crit range could be by it's total crit multiplier. For every multiplier of a weapon past X2 the threat range creates a cap of -1 to the maximum threat range. So far it is working out fine and while the crit monkey of my group does get big hits it doesn't happen as much before I introduced the cap.
Another random thought to throw out there since you're rebuilding it for your home rules. Consider the Keen or Improved Crit a flat bonus (+1) instead of a doubling. You could allow the feats/enchantments to be taken multiple times. So you get a greataxe +1, Keen2 for a +3 weapon. Gives it a crit range of 18-20 because of the Keen2, etc.
I looked at increasing by one, but it really doesn't deliver enough of a change to be worthwhile a lot of the time and it really hurts those using high threat/low damage weapon options, and they have it tough enough as it is.
I looked at increasing by one, but it really doesn't deliver enough of a change to be worthwhile a lot of the time and it really hurts those using high threat/low damage weapon options, and they have it tough enough as it is.
I chewed on this option for a while as well, and I came to the same conclusion. The only reason, IMO, to wield a rapier is for the extended crit range (that is, if you're playing by the numbers and not per your character <wink>). If it doesn't get doubled by Improved Critical, then most of the fun is really stripped from it.
So now I'm looking at a keen rapier in the hands of a rogue with Improved Critical (rapier) and 5d6 sneak attack -- 1d6/15-20/x3 +5d6. In the immortal words of Borat: "I like..."
Yes, it's nice - but at the end of the day it's not broken. Without bonuses you are only getting an extra 1d6 30% of the time. More with bonuses, but how many static bonuses are you likely to have if you are fighting with a rapier? I'm sure there's a power build that could make it look very nasty, but for myself I'm not too worried.
Yes, it's nice - but at the end of the day it's not broken. Without bonuses you are only getting an extra 1d6 30% of the time. More with bonuses, but how many static bonuses are you likely to have if you are fighting with a rapier? I'm sure there's a power build that could make it look very nasty, but for myself I'm not too worried.
If you use the rapier with a strength based build the bonuses to damage would be multiplied by 3, and that is where the damage is. It may not be much though. I might run it through the Iron Sides thread to see if it matters.
If you use the rapier with a strength based build the bonuses to damage would be multiplied by 3, and that is where the damage is. It may not be much though. I might run it through the Iron Sides thread to see if it matters.
Yes, I agree that is where the damage racks up. It actually makes the duelist look good, too. However, a non-duelist strength based build will get more damage out of a two-handed weapon, say an eleven curve-blade. It really depends on the AC of the target, though. High AC and the greater threat range wins out, lower AC and the higher multiplier wins out, I believe.
The real problem is that the Critical Threat Range has never made any sense, and is FUBAR. The only time they work is in a vacuum where we completely ignore bonuses to damage. Add damage bonuses, and crit feats and weapons with a high crit range win every time. There has to be some sort of middle ground where these items work out in a sensible fashion, problem being a lot of people would scream about the real solution, which is essentially what they did in the Saga Edition of Star Wars. Increase base damage, all weapons crit the same.
Another option, which I've toyed with, is this:
Critical Hit multiplier only applies to base weapon damage (so crit on a longsword isn't full damage x2, it's full damage + 1d8)Threat Range is +2 to threat confirmation roll for every point below 20 (so a longsword would have a +2 on threat confirmation rolls to crit)
All weapons dice increase by 1 step per iterative of the wielder (so actually, that sword does 2d6 damage and crits for +2d6 damage if wielded by a 6th level fighter)
I haven't gotten the chance to test it yet, but I will sometime.
|
I allow things that improve Crit Range or Multiplier to stack, but no beyond 15-20 x4, (except for abilities that are like 1/day effects). However, I also usually play in games that are slightly above the normal power curve. With that being said, I haven't really had any trouble.
I also sometimes house rule that weapons must have an actual magic enhancement for each equivalent magical property. SO a +1 Flamng Sword is good, but to add anything else to it, it must first become a +2 weapon. A third property needs a +3 actual enhancement first, (but it doesn't have to be equal as far as +# bonus and +# equivalent bonus, per se).
The real problem is that the Critical Threat Range has never made any sense, and is FUBAR. The only time they work is in a vacuum where we completely ignore bonuses to damage. Add damage bonuses, and crit feats and weapons with a high crit range win every time. There has to be some sort of middle ground where these items work out in a sensible fashion, problem being a lot of people would scream about the real solution, which is essentially what they did in the Saga Edition of Star Wars. Increase base damage, all weapons crit the same.
I'd have to disagree - it makes perfect sense to me. It becomes a balancing factor with weapons of low damage like the scimitar or the rapier because while these lighter weapons may inflict lighter damage, they can be lethal if the wielder places them in the right place, hence the high threat range. Stabbing somebody through the arm isn't as effective as lopping it off, but running somebody through the heart kills them as dead as lopping their head off.
Yes, a lot of people would scream if you did that, because it changes the entire balance of the weapons for a lot of characters. In Star Wars Saga, how many different melee weapons are really used a lot, other than lightsabers which are energy weapons? I don't remember seeing many in the movies.
Now in D&D, as in the medieval period, there are a shed-load of specialist melee weapons with various purposes. Threat ranges and critical multipliers is one way of differentiating them, and giving weapon specialists something to sing about.
What makes a dagger less likely to find the heart? Thickness - a rapier is a long, narrow blade that gets between the ribs easier.
Similarly other weapons function in slightly different ways - curved slashing edges are more effective against flesh, less so against armour. There are a LOT of differences between them, and this is where the changes come in.
Yes, a sword is a sharp piece of steel, but try the heft and balance of different swords and you start to understand where the differences come from. Heavy swords are likely to inflict more savage wounds than light ones, but light ones are easier to place where you want them no matter what your strength. So the heavy sword has the greater mean damage, the lighter one the better threat range.
You base everything on the assumption that there's no real difference between weapons IRL when there most definitely is, and I have handled enough to know!
I do understand where you are coming from, but that the system isn't that way isn't the fault of the system, it just takes a different perspective.
if you want to generalise and say light weapons = 1d6 damage, one handed = 1d8 and two handed = 2d6 damage, you can do, and assign every weapon 20/x2 for threat range, but it makes life boring and it means that a lot of concepts stop working.
It is entirely possible--nay, likely--that the game isn't trying to duplicate or even replicate real life. Having an esoteric argument about whether a dagger vs. a rapier can find someone's heart better completely brushes aside the fact that this is a game.
It's a game, a game that the designers (beginning with Gygax and Arneson) felt would be cooler if there were a multitude of weapons represented rather than, say, five--sword, club, spear, axe, and bow. But with the multiplicity of weapons choices comes the need to differentiate them numerically. "Sharp pointy metal things" become actual choices when they have different damage dice, threat ranges, and crit multipliers. If not for those variations, five weapons would have been sufficient. Heck, even one generic weapon would have been enough, and then D&D would have looked more like Risk.
Cool your jets, fellows. We're not trying to say that a dagger only does 1-4 points of damage, 19-10/x2 on a crit. I mean really...we all KNOW that a dagger can kill you in one shot. Period. Quit kidding around with this strange talk of real life, because it falls apart, like, instantly.
That depends on what you are fighting, I think. The scimitar is great against foes that are susceptible to critical hits, on average. The longsword is better against a wider range of foes and it's more reliable if you have a run of bad luck (I've had games where the dice just seem to hate me) and don't score any critical hits.
Interestingly the longsword in Europe was gradually replaced with the rapier, a more sophisticated weapon, which is a match for the scimitar in terms of damage and threat range. For myself, I like the idea of a rapier-wielding sophisticated (lower str, high dex/int) fencer as opposed to a broadsword-wielding brute, but the rules favour the latter over the former, and skewing the critical-range further in the direction of the broadsword/longsword makes it even harder.
That depends on what you are fighting, I think. The scimitar is great against foes that are susceptible to critical hits, on average. The longsword is better against a wider range of foes and it's more reliable if you have a run of bad luck (I've had games where the dice just seem to hate me) and don't score any critical hits.The Longsword is on average better against a wider range of foes by 1 point of damage, and bad luck still means 1 point of damage per hit difference. Good luck or against the wider range of foes who are not immune to critical hits the Scimitar does a lot more damage, and the stronger the wielder is or rather the more bonuses the better, in rapid disproportion to the longsword, oh and to add offense to injury we will add critical feats to the equation. Luck is luck eventually it turns, but the Scimitar being superior is eternal.
Interestingly the longsword in Europe was gradually replaced with the rapier, a more sophisticated weapon, which is a match for the scimitar in terms of damage and threat range. For myself, I like the idea of a rapier-wielding sophisticated (lower str, high dex/int) fencer as opposed to a broadsword-wielding brute, but the rules favour the latter over the former, and skewing the critical-range further in the direction of the broadsword/longsword makes it even harder.The rapier replaced the longsword simply because of firearms negating the use of heavy armor, whereupon lighter faster blades became viable since they no longer needed to worry about running into a tin can. From a pure damage perspective the weapon delivering more kinetic energy to the point of attack should be doing more damage, and this is not the case. I like the idea of the no armor swashbuckling character too, but in a game where both exist side by side, he is going to be at a disadvantage particularly when firearms are not available and in a system which does not model the advantages of armor very well.
It's a common fallacy that firearms spelled the end for heavy armour; in fact early firearms had the same kind of penetrating power as a longbow or crossbow, and many suits are armour were considered 'proofed' against them. What killed heavy armour was the cost of it: you simply could not get sufficient numbers of heavily armoured men to be militarily viable against the far larger numbers of lightly armoured or unarmoured men you could field. In the same way, longbowmen were not made unemployed by crossbowmen or musketeers because those weapons were better, longbows simply took to long to train men with and cost too much when compared to the cost of a musket and a week's training for a peasant.
As for damage, greater kinetic energy is a big factor, but speed and accuracy is also a factor. Any martial artist can tell you that the pressure required to kill a man is less than that which a six-stone weakling can exert, if it is applied in the right place. How do you factor that as damage? It doesn't help that the D&D combat system is abstract in how it deals with damage, of course. But the system seems to work on the principal that weapons with greater raw kinetic energy have larger damage dice and critical multipliers, and those with greater precision potential have greater threat ranges.
That said, I think your assessment of the longsword isn't too bad, with x3 multiplier. Myself I'd give it more x2.5, but that would complicate things a lot more.