| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Improved Critical stack with Targeting: Torso from the gunslinger?
Do any one know?
Does Improved Critical stack with Targeting: Torso from the gunslinger?
I would imagine not since the Improved Critical Feat states:
"This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon."
|
Targeting the torso does not "expand" the threat range of the weapon, it simply puts the base range of the attack at 19-20 instead of 20.
Thus, it stacks with Improved Critical (and it better be if you decide to spend your full-round action doing a single attack roll instead of, you know, shooting multiples times).
I have been wondering that same question for a while myself. The wording could be interpreted ether way.
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Improved 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.
Torso: Targeting the torso threatens a critical on a 19–20.
So the question becomes; Is targeting the torso expanding the threat range or modifying it?
Personally I would let it stack, and something I wanted to do for a while was create a giant that wielded a cannon as a two-handed weapon with this and improved critical >:D
Given that guns all crit only on a 20, and that the ability doubles (expands) that crit range, they look like the same effect to me, and therefore do not stack. Unless you can claim that going from 20 to a 19-20 is not an expanded crit range?
2 feats for an 18-20 vs torso, 19-20 all other. Is that worth it. But then again I don't care for guns.
|
|
Again : the ability does not "increase" the crit range of your firearm, it sets the crit range for this specific deed attack made as a full-round action at a different, greater base range.
Any other effect in the game improving the critical hit range states so and says it does not stack with other similar effects in it's description, either this is Keen, Improved Critical, Keen Edge, Falcon's Aspect, Slayer's Knack, etc.
So this is actually a 17-20x4 attack roll with Improved Critical = a 20% chance of critical hit at the expense of a grit point and a full-round action, when you could instead full-attack without spending any grit and easily have 4 attack rolls at 19-20x4 anyway at level 9.
|
I'd say no, the feat modifies the weapons threat range, the torso shot replaces the threat range with the torso threat range.
That and the general spirit of the crit rules have been to prevent things like the previous editions of DnD where we had those vulgar ork claws that could crit on a 12-20 with the right feats/enchantments
Again : the ability does not "increase" the crit range of your firearm, it sets the crit range for this specific deed attack made as a full-round action at a different, greater base range.
Any other effect in the game improving the critical hit range states so and says it does not stack with other similar effects in it's description, either this is Keen, Improved Critical, Keen Edge, Falcon's Aspect, Slayer's Knack, etc.
So this is actually a 17-20x4 attack roll with Improved Critical = a 20% chance of critical hit at the expense of a grit point and a full-round action, when you could instead full-attack without spending any grit and easily have 4 attack rolls at 19-20x4 anyway at level 9.
The question is is that lack of wording intentional or an oversight? My opinion is that it is an oversight.
|
|
My opinion is that either this is an oversight despite stacking criticals being one of the most checked and kept under control abilities in PFRPG, in which case this ability is absolutely terrible and useless from any point of view ; or this is not an oversight at all because this ability will be useless 95% of your gunslinger carreer, and will only favor the lucky ones and let you shine in some rare situations where you need to or can only shoot once, and still have a full-round action to spare (instead of using the much-more-devastating-yet-still-weaker-than-a-full-attack Dead Shot).
I tend to favor the second option. From a balance perspective, it seems that targeting Torso is intentionnaly sub-par (while still providing the potential to deal respectable damage) in comparison to Dead Shot or a simple full-round attack because it offers a "damage" option within the versatility of the "targeting" deed for those who chose this deed as their favored at 11th level.
If it's not broken and smells funny, no need to beat a dead horse with further nerf.
|
Here's what I take from the wording.
Improved Critical doubles your threat range with that weapon.
Targeting Torso increases your threat range on that target.
They both affect different things, so it should stack fine, to 17-20.
Or you could say that "Great, your threat range on the target is now 19-20, and your threat range with that weapon is doubled so now 19-20, and they have nothing to do with each other."
|
|
Here is the problem as I see it. The Torso Targeting is either:
1. Expanding your threat range to 19-20
or
2. Setting your threat range to 19-20
If it is 1 then it doesn't stack with Improved Critical.
If it is 2 then it sets the threat range for that attack regardless of other factors.
Either way I don't see them working together to get an 17-20 threat range
|
|
And saying it again, by the rules, just because the critical range is greater for this specific attack does not mean the deed "increases" your threat range. It may seem ridiculous and counter-intuitive, but there is a clear difference between "increasing" something, in which case the ability clearly expresses the fact that it doesn't stack with any other similar effect ; and setting the numbers to a new basis. If there is one thing Paizo didn't perfectly get yet, it's to edit the rules so there is no room for misinterpretation.
And even if the number is set at a new basis, it makes no sense to handwave the ability to double the crit range of any attack you make with this weapon. Pathfinder is not the kind of system where a bonus suddenly does not work anymore unless clearly expressed.
There is nothing broken to fix here, again, no need to make it stink even more.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
And saying it again, by the rules, just because the critical range is greater for this specific attack does not mean the deed "increases" your threat range. It may seem ridiculous and counter-intuitive, but there is a clear difference between "increasing" something, in which case the ability clearly expresses the fact that it doesn't stack with any other similar effect ; and setting the numbers to a new basis. If there is one thing Paizo didn't perfectly get yet, it's to edit the rules so there is no room for misinterpretation.
And even if the number is set at a new basis, it makes no sense to handwave the ability to double the crit range of any attack you make with this weapon. Pathfinder is not the kind of system where a bonus suddenly does not work anymore unless clearly expressed.There is nothing broken to fix here, again, no need to make it stink even more.
This thread is giving me a migraine. It's RIGHT THERE IN THE RULES YOU'RE QUOTING. "This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon." The normal threat range of a gun is 20 only. If something increases that threat range to ANYTHING ELSE, that's an effect that expands the threat range. I really don't understand how you can see it any other way. These arguments about semantics have got to stop. Seriously, this one is as ridiculous as the "does haste give a monk an extra unarmed attack" thread (THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES).
Still no official answer on this ?
My gunslinger is about to reach level 8, and I'll take Improved Critical as a bonus feat.
I think it's very strange that a capability you gain at level 7 becomes obsolete with a feat that is very often choosed at level 8.
Its not strange at all. It is a common occurrence for a class feature to give a player the benefit of a feat (or the equivalent of a feat) when the stats on the character wouldn't normally qualify them for it.
Think of it instead as now you get to use that feat slot on something else instead. Or take the feat anyway and never target the torso when you use the deed.
|
Yes it's common that a class gives a class feature that works like a feat, but in this case, the feat is far better than the class feature.
To use the "targeting torso exploit" you have to spend 1 grit point and a full-round action.
If you don't roll a 19 or 20 on your d20 (90% chance you don't) you've basically lost one grit point, and you round of action for almost nothing !
So, I have this class feature I've only tried to use once (unsuccessfully) and I won't probably use it in the next game. After next game I'll reach level 8 (if we survive) and take Improved Critical feat, so that this class feature will become totally useless.
Suboptimal choices are part of pathfinder.
Of the options for the deed in question, the torso shot is the least useful. The other targeting locations all have situationally useful effects.
This thread is giving me a migraine. It's RIGHT THERE IN THE RULES YOU'RE QUOTING. "This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon." The normal threat range of a gun is 20 only. If something increases that threat range to ANYTHING ELSE, that's an effect that expands the threat range. I really don't understand how you can see it any other way. These arguments about semantics have got to stop. Seriously, this one is as ridiculous as the "does haste give a monk an extra unarmed attack" thread (THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES).And saying it again, by the rules, just because the critical range is greater for this specific attack does not mean the deed "increases" your threat range. It may seem ridiculous and counter-intuitive, but there is a clear difference between "increasing" something, in which case the ability clearly expresses the fact that it doesn't stack with any other similar effect ; and setting the numbers to a new basis. If there is one thing Paizo didn't perfectly get yet, it's to edit the rules so there is no room for misinterpretation.
And even if the number is set at a new basis, it makes no sense to handwave the ability to double the crit range of any attack you make with this weapon. Pathfinder is not the kind of system where a bonus suddenly does not work anymore unless clearly expressed.There is nothing broken to fix here, again, no need to make it stink even more.
So let's look at a hypothetical situation and assume there is a gun that has a crit range of 18-20. How would Targeting: Torso affect that? Your answer to that also determines if Improved Critical works with it.
As it's worded, I'd suggest that it would make Targeting: Torso useless on anything that isn't a 20 crit range. It doesn't say "increases to" or "is expanded to." If you specifically target the torso, you threaten on a 19-20 no matter the weapon's original threat range.
That said, you could feasibly use the same argument to say that this also overrides any modifications to the gun's threat range, such as the keen property or Improved Critical, applying them before you look at the threat range from targeting rather than after.
I can certainly see getting a migraine here. Granted, not because I'm frustrated about being proven wrong about something I think is right despite evidence to the contrary, but still.
