Does anyone actually use the Cunning weapon special ability? If so why?
To me it doesn't seem like it's worth the cost for a mere +2 bonus on critical confirmation rolls. Am I missing something?
Description: The cunning special ability allows a weapon to find chinks in a foe’s defenses using the wielder’s knowledge of the target. Whenever the weapon’s attack is a critical threat, the wielder gains a +2 bonus on the confirmation roll if she has 5 or more ranks in the Knowledge skill related to the target’s creature type (such as Knowledge [planes] for an outsider opponent).
Aura Moderate divination; CL 6th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, true strike; Price +1 bonus. Source: Advanced Player's Guide
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it looks like crap. I would never trade a +1 to hit, damage, and confirming criticals just to get an extra point to confirm crits. What a waste. I wouldn't even take this if it gave a +4 or +6 to confirm. In my opinion and experience, confirming a Crit is practically never an issue. I have literally never seen a PC fail to confirm a critical hit except by rolling a natural 1, which this would not help.
Yeah, in order for you to have this on a weapon, it needs to be a +2 item. By time you are getting those, you are about level 6-8 where you are already hitting very reliably. I'd consider it The bonus were a +4 and I were munching my attack bonus for something.
Yeah, that's an absolutely terrible enchantment. I guess it's one of those "trap" choices they're always talking about.
you can CERTAINLY fail to confirm crits.
ESPECIALLY lower iterative attacks, so if you full attack alot, this concept should work.
still, trading +1 att/dmg for ALL attacks to get +2 to att for CONFIRMS only definitely is weak.
+2 should be the minimum here, and more like +3 or +4 is where it is worthwhile.
eventually, some huge bonus would just be AUTO CONFIRM on 99% of all crits, which I think is too strong for a +1 effect.
you can get +4 to confirm for a feat, so +3 or +4 seems about right...
i don't see many effects that give +3 to something, so let's say +4...???
you can CERTAINLY fail to confirm crits.
ESPECIALLY lower iterative attacks, so if you full attack alot, this concept should work.
still, trading +1 att/dmg for ALL attacks to get +2 to att for CONFIRMS only definitely is weak.
+2 should be the minimum here, and more like +3 or +4 is where it is worthwhile.
eventually, some huge bonus would just be AUTO CONFIRM on 99% of all crits, which I think is too strong for a +1 effect.
you can get +4 to confirm for a feat, so +3 or +4 seems about right...
i don't see many effects that give +3 to something, so let's say +4...???
Considering keen is a +1 enhancement and since this requires the knowledge skill the bonus should be +4, I can see it worthwhile for some crit heavy builds, a +2 to confirm crits doesnt shape up against a +1 enhancement to hit, damage and penetrate DR without requiring knowledge ranks.
Confirm rolls are just as hard as to hit rolls really, and when taking penalties to hit to fight defensively or very hard to hit opponents it can definately be worthwhile since many of your hits will be a potential crit.
That's a stupidly lame enchantment.
"I have literally never seen a PC fail to confirm a critical hit except by rolling a natural 1." - mplindustries
Really? Then you haven't been playing enough Pathfinder. (Or you have some peculiar houserules.)
This is partly true. I've not yet actually played Pathfinder. But I've played plenty of 3rd edition, which also had confirmation rolls. Unless there's something I'm not seeing in Pathfinder that makes confirmation rolls harder than they used to be, I still feel confident in the relevance of my statement.
The only time I would take it is when the weapon is already sitting at +5 and you are looking at adding something else. In a crit based fighter with the crit feats this could be worth wile. Especially in an off hand weapon that does not have haste or other more powerful effects due to cost.
But overall this is not a top choice for most builds and is more of an option for the player trying to squeak a little bit more off the crit feat effects out of his build.
This is partly true. I've not yet actually played Pathfinder. But I've played plenty of 3rd edition, which also had confirmation rolls. Unless there's something I'm not seeing in Pathfinder that makes confirmation rolls harder than they used to be, I still feel confident in the relevance of my statement."I have literally never seen a PC fail to confirm a critical hit except by rolling a natural 1." - mplindustries
Really? Then you haven't been playing enough Pathfinder. (Or you have some peculiar houserules.)
This is simply silly, you have as much chance to miss your confirmation roll as your attack roll, since you need to roll a 15+ on a threat there is a very significant chance you need to roll pretty decent to confirm.
The only time I would take it is when the weapon is already sitting at +5 and you are looking at adding something else. In a crit based fighter with the crit feats this could be worth wile. Especially in an off hand weapon that does not have haste or other more powerful effects due to cost.
But overall this is not a top choice for most builds and is more of an option for the player trying to squeak a little bit more off the crit feat effects out of his build.
Even then, it's crap. Just how many different knowledge skills, and how many ranks in them, do your fighters have? Mine have none.
Also, when critical focus gives an across-the-board +4 to crit confirmation, this only giving a +2, and then only if you have 5 knowledge ranks vs. that type of critter, is complete garbage, and a waste of an enchantment. I agree with getting a weapon up to +5, keen, for a crit-based fighter, before looking at other enchantments, but after +5 and keen, I'd probably look at energy burst.
Your odds of confirming a crit are exactly the same as your odds of hitting in the first place. (Barring special bonuses) Unless you've never seen a PC miss with an attack, then you can imagine a situation where improving your chance to crit would be useful.
That said, cunning is just an awful trade, and it would be an awful trade even if it worked on every monster regardless of whether you had dumped a pile of points into knowledge skills. Even if you threaten on a 15, have a bevy of benefits for critting, and have a bunch of knowledge skills anyway, it's probably not worth giving up the +1 for, and what kind of character looks like that? I guess once you have the +5 in place it might be worth adding to a weapon for a crit-and-knowledge-focused character, but it's basically just a weak enchantment.
While it's hard to compare directly, and there's a huge gap in how good feats are, generally a +1 bonus is substantially better than a feat. (The +1 bonus itself is better than Weapon Focus for most characters, and that's a good feat.) Cunning is like half of a feat that doesn't work against many things for most characters.
As a DM, it's the kind of thing I might throw on a weapon treasure for someone who did sort of qualify as a potential good user of it, but I don't think I'd charge full value for it from the treasure portion. I can't imagine anyone really picking it.
I think that it's a very very bad enchantment.
This is simply silly, you have as much chance to miss your confirmation roll as your attack roll, since you need to roll a 15+ on a threat there is a very significant chance you need to roll pretty decent to confirm.
This doesn't make sense. Threatening a critical has to do with the number on the die, not the actual AC hit.
A fighter who is marginally optimized for a crit build (falchion let's say) will have enough +hit that he only misses attack rolls on a 1-3 against an even CR opponent.
Quick example: TH Falchion Fighter level 8. Target AC=21. Attack bonus=8 (BAB)+7 (Str) +2 (Weapon) +3 (WFocus, GWFocus, Weapon Training)=21. Conditional modifiers may include Haste (+1), Inspire Courage (+2), Heroism (+2), flanking, etc. If you threaten a critical with the basic necessities of your build, you ought not to miss anyway.