Lately, I have been doing some work on my own game. I truely dislike how the game has progressed to the point where everyone gravitates towards the weapons with larger critical ranges, ignoring the classic weapons of AD&D (long sword, mace, flail, warhammer, battleaxe, etc.). Part of this arises from when the Improved Critical feat becomes available, or the keen special weapon property.
These two provide the means of increasing the chances of acheiving that elusive critical hit--and ending the battle quickly. The problem that I have is that they do so in a disproportionate manner. Both of these abilities, in effect, double the size of your weapons critical threat range.
A weapon that crits on a 20, now does so on a 19-20. If you were wielding a weapon that crits on a 19-20, it now becomes 17-20. An 18-20 weapon becomes a 15-20 weapon. That dramatic increase in crit range just overshadows the normal weapons.
And it shouldn't be so. So, what I am thinking of doing for my own is simple: the feat Improved Critical adds +1 to the critical threat range, no matter what the original threat range was. 20 becomes 19-20; 19-20 becomes 18-20; 18-20 becomes 17-20. Keen does the same thing, but as usual, they do not stack.
This reduces the chance of a critical for power-gamers, and I am certain that I shall receive an earful for even proposing it. But frankly, I am tired of all the folks at my table picking weapons with better crit ranges in expectation of that day when almost a third of all their hits threaten a critical.
Anyway, that is what I am going to do. What about you? Do you have any problems with critical threat ranges and the growing expansion of 18-20 threat weapons?
Master Arminas
your approach could be valid, maybe even with greater critical to add further +1 crit range, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. all the critical feats just don't work vs. crit immune creatures, not to mention negation via Fortification or other abilities... which are definitely in play by the time you can Imp Critical or Keen on a regular basis (for the most part).
honestly, I think what could be proposed is feats that have their effect when you DON'T crit. :-)
I think it's plausible to say that Crits are also negated when there is Concealment that applies to Precision Damage.
Hey, since PD isn't really all that well defined, you can just say that Crits ARE PD, and it's hardly house-ruling any more than what is currently necessary vs. other things which 'probably' are PD.
Personally, I think (for reasons I just posted in the other thread) people are overestimating the extra damage of expanded critical weapons.
Whenever these weapons are not critting, the smaller crit-threat weapons are doing more base damage, and when they do crit, they do bigger damage.
So basically, as I see it. Extended critical threat weapons are subpar compared to normal threat weapons; except when players invest in those critical feats, which then gives extended critical weapons much more power.
I agree with the above.
Honestly, at worst you can just accept it as the standard weapon choice, and it's not any worse than if there WASN'T crit range variation and all 1H/2H/Light weapons did pretty much the same damage as all weapons in their same class.
You also have to take into account weapon die scaling with enlargements, and certain die sizes disproportionately increasing there.
Really, it's just most impacting characters who are less able to change (at later levels) weapon specializations while simlutaneously needing those specializations to be most effective, since at low levels Crits are less effective (at least for some builds, e.g. Throwing Weapons w/ Rapid Fire+2WF they are pretty damn effective at low levels).
In many ways, Quandary, perhaps I am being nostalgic. I remember back when I started playing AD&D, and getting a natural 20 was something that was exciting! You only got criticals on Nat 20s back then; there wasn't a confirmation roll, or a threat-range, and each weapon only did double damage. But it was special when it happened.
Critters immune to critical hits have dramatically shrunk in Pathfinder, as well. Oozes and incorporeal creatures are just about it. You can even crit a construct! And how many opponents have fortification armor?
Master Arminas
In many ways, Quandary, perhaps I am being nostalgic. I remember back when I started playing AD&D, and getting a natural 20 was something that was exciting! You only got criticals on Nat 20s back then; there wasn't a confirmation roll, or a threat-range, and each weapon only did double damage. But it was special when it happened.
4e went back to that system, which is a lot better imo. Needing to roll "confirmations" really sucks the fun out of getting a crit.
It's especially fun for the "High Critical" quality weapons that double the damage (basically, a quadruple over normal damage).
Certainly no.1-2 points does not make much diference. at later level a crit would add 20-40 of damage, and most of that damage will not come from the weapon damage dice.
As I said before. That is crit feat investment. Classes with no or few bonus feats that want to spend feats on other abilities will find that improved crit range weapons don't do more damage.
Whenever these weapons are not critting, the smaller crit-threat weapons are doing more base damage, and when they do crit, they do bigger damage.
So basically, as I see it. Extended critical threat weapons are subpar compared to normal threat weapons; except when players invest in those critical feats, which then gives extended critical weapons much more power.
This just isn't accurate. You don't even need Keen/ImpCrit for high Crit range weapons to eventually out-DPR high base damage/low Crit range weapons, once lots of static damage (crit multiplyabl) is available.
Keen/ImpCrit are eventually major DPR boosts for ANY weapon, albeit some are disproportionately benefitted. The highest benefitted weapon I believe is actually the Falcata because it has a high multiplier AND a decent (but not highest) Crit Range. Low Crit Range, but high Crit Multiplier weapons also eventually out-theory-DPR high base damage/lowCritRange/Multiplier weapons, and are likewise disproportionately benefitted by Keen/ImpCrit. Another issue besides DPR is Crit-triggered special effects.
Seriously, I think Feats/Abilities which only apply on non-Crits/ aren't MULTIPLIED on a Crit, and which are thus 'allowed' to be relatively more beneficial (than if they applied to Crits) are a good way to balance things out.
...Also though, besides Fortification, there are abilities which give an AC boost for Crit Confirmation rolls.
In many ways, Quandary, perhaps I am being nostalgic. I remember back when I started playing AD&D, and getting a natural 20 was something that was exciting! You only got criticals on Nat 20s back then; there wasn't a confirmation roll, or a threat-range, and each weapon only did double damage. But it was special when it happened.
For sure.
Honestly, I do think it would be interesting to show what ACTUAL effect having '+1/2/3' Crit Range Feats would have on SPECIFIC weapons... (e.g. scimitar/longsword)
Low Crit Range weapons would be disproportinately effected obviously.
You would probably have to BAN the Falcata, right? :-)
Critters immune to critical hits have dramatically shrunk in Pathfinder, as well. Oozes and incorporeal creatures are just about it. You can even crit a construct! And how many opponents have fortification armor?
The thing is, if players/characters can choose/optimize Crit-focused (range/multiplie) weapons and Feats, i.e. the importance of Crits is recognized for offence, why doesn't that carry over to Defensive decisions assuming that the opposition is equally able to Crit optimize? We're talking an Armor + equivalent Enchantment that can negate the Fighter Capstone ability.
Elementals are also Immune (and they are on Summons lists), I'm sure some other stuff too here and there.
Definitely if Concealment negated Crits (at least the damage part, if that was ruled as Precision Damage), that would be a serious crimp on Crits. (well, not serious overall, but serious in regards to optimizing around them, and being dependent on them regularly working)
This just isn't accurate. You don't even need Keen/ImpCrit for high Crit range weapons to eventually out-DPR high base damage/low Crit range weapons, once lots of static damage (crit multiplyabl) is available.Whenever these weapons are not critting, the smaller crit-threat weapons are doing more base damage, and when they do crit, they do bigger damage.
So basically, as I see it. Extended critical threat weapons are subpar compared to normal threat weapons; except when players invest in those critical feats, which then gives extended critical weapons much more power.
I will post my response to the other thread where someone was arguing high crit threat weapons out DPSd low crit threat weapons. (specifically comparing Scimitar and Longsword).
Crits statistically become rather common at higher levels with a scimitar however, resulting in a critical hit about 30% of the time. Considering this can start as early as you can get a +1 keen weapon it can end up covering most of a game. A long sword by comparison is only going to crit about 20% of the time. Other weapons are going to be about 5~10% of the time.A 10% difference is not so big. Yes, you're correct, that the expanded crit makes a very big difference for critical feats, but a class that may not be taking critical feats won't see much of a big difference, since as I said, crits are not very common.
Even assuming the dice give 100% random rolls and crits for expanded range give a 30% chance, that is not a lot. You're rolling regular damage 70% of the time.
So, in exchange for a 10% less often crit for the longsword, you have a larger die, meaning 70% of the time you do slightly better damage, and 20% of the time when you do crit, you statistically do better damage due to the larger die.
So the way I am seeing it, only 10% of the time does the Scimitar do better damage (ignoring critical feats) when it [statistically] crits when the longsword doesn't.
I think one thing to mention is that Melee Weapons are simply able to get better Crit Ranges/Multipliers than Ranged, which again is important for Melee Fighter types' balance... both against non-Fighter types, and against Archer Fighter types, who can more consistently achieve Full Attacks then Melee types who are more dependent on positioning/maneuvering (which has drastic effect on action economy).
@CommandoDude: ACs and To-Hit value change things... if Anything but a 1 hits, then 95% of your rolls are doing damage.
If you need a 5 or 10, then only 75% or 50% of your rolls are doing damage,
but if you only need a 15 to Crit, then your proportions of HITS that are Crits is proportionately higher.
You just need to look at DPR Olympics threads to see the actual effect vs. standard ACs.
Actually I think a little more thought needed to go into the original weapon set. I too remember when the longsword was a good, solid performer of a weapon. And it could be again, it just needs some features other weapons do not have.
Point number one, why in RL is a longsword straight? To thrust. So why does the longsword only inflict slashing damage? Make it slashing or piercing and you have a weapon of greater utility there and then without upsetting the balances for other weapons.
@CommandoDude: ACs and To-Hit value change things... if Anything but a 1 hits, then 95% of your rolls are doing damage.
If you need a 5 or 10, then only 75% or 50% of your rolls are doing damage,
but if you only need a 15 to Crit, then your proportions of HITS that are Crits is proportionately higher.You just need to look at DPR Olympics threads to see the actual effect vs. standard ACs.
Which would still mean that the only time that Scimitar out damages a longsword would be on a roll of 15 or 16. (or 18 if neither weapon is keen). Essentially, a 1/10 or 1/20th of the time. Since any attack which does not hit AC wouldn't matter either way.
The proportion of crits to hits rises, but the proportion of crits doesn't actually increase. So it won't change the fact that on a 17-20, a keen longsword would do more damage, and any hit 14 or below would also do more damage (assuming a hit of course). Which is not too far fetched that you could have a high enough bonus (or they could have a significant penalty) to make hitting on the lower numbers easier).
The only times where the expanded critical threat range would improve damage, is when either A) Critical feats are in play, or B) Criticals are the only means to hit.
I would say check out the DPR olympics, there has been exhaustive testing done with builds and weapons, and high threat wins pretty much every time (vs low threat high damage). It doesn't do much good to argue the point here without numbers to back it up.
Are DPS Olypmics using the same dice rolls to compare damage between Longsword and Scimitar? Or are they using different rolls or computer generated calculators?
Because I just did about 20 rolls on my desk as an experiment to see which vanilla sword out "damaged" the other and Longsword completely owned the Scimitar with its d8 die. Not an incredibly large sample size, but I get the feeling I could do 50 more with similar results.
One thing that DPR Olypmics will never replicate for certainty is the inconsistency with dice rolls, given that most low cost manufactured dice get misshapped when rock polished to remove blemishes, making them more likely to roll 9/12s and less likely to roll 1/20s due to an altered center of gravity.
So, no. I'm not so inclined to accept the results of DPS Olypmics, which is the reason I am getting the feeling people overvalue high crit range weapons.
DPR Olympics spreadsheet is statistically accurate... The numbers are derived AS IF you rolled the dice 20 times and each number came up once, same being repeated for any Crit Confirm rolls, and the results compared to the target AC to see how many hit/Crit... No actual or virtual dice are being rolled. One of the complications of the statistical calculation is that Nat1s always miss even they would normally hit the target AC, and Nat20s always hit(/confirm) even if they wouldn't normally hit the target AC.
One thing that DPR Olypmics will never replicate for certainty is the inconsistency with dice rolls, given that most low cost manufactured dice get misshapped when rock polished to remove blemishes, making them more likely to roll 9/12s and less likely to roll 1/20s due to an altered center of gravity.
Or any other numbers could be weighted to come up more. If you wanted to, you could alter the Spreadsheet code to account for your favorite weighted dice's actual distribution (if you knew it), but barring that, the Spreadsheet is accurate if you consider it's modeling ALL d20 dice, not just one particular d20. Your own wonky weighted die isn't really a good basis for a discussion of what the rules themselves allow for. Obviously, conceptually, the rules are assuming that the dice ARE in fact neutral to come up every number of the d20.
Which would still mean that the only time that Scimitar out damages a longsword would be on a roll of 15 or 16. (or 18 if neither weapon is keen). Essentially, a 1/10 or 1/20th of the time. Since any attack which does not hit AC wouldn't matter either way.
You can start from the point that neither scimitar nor longsword affect your chance to hit in the first place.
If we are comparing DPR, attack rolls that miss aren't contributing anything, but that is the same for both.Given we are looking at DPR, if a higher % of the hits are Crits for Scimitar, the Scimitar will be getting more damage out of those die rolls. (Crits ALWAYS comprise a higher % of Scimitar DPR compared to Longsword DPR, and DPR Olympics show that AT A CERTAIN POINT re: TO-HIT and DMG BONUS NUMBERS, Scimitar DPR is higher overall, i.e. once the extra Crits are supplying more damage than Longsword's higher base damage (normal and multiplied on Crits combined).
You refer to 1/10th or 1/20th as numbers, obviously in reference to over-all die rolls (d20), but DPR doesn't care about Critting on 2, or 3 or 4 more die faces as a percentage of ALL die faces, because non-hits don't contribute to DPR at all... It cares about Crits as a percentage of hits, because that is the differential in damage, given both weapons are hitting the same. Thus, it's not 2:20, but 2:15 or 2:10.
Actual numbers are dependent on to-hit numbers and target AC, but using the baseline ACs for CR straight out of the Bestiary (as DPR Olympics does) results in the numbers shown in DPR Olympics... which shows how Scimitar beats Longsword with those Class builds vs. standard AC targets. Longsword DOES do marginally better damage on non-Crits AND Crits, but that is factored into DPR Olympics... Once you have enough DMG bonuses that multiply on a Crit, Scimitar wins (with Keen moving that point earlier) because it is getting those Crits more often. That will happen even if your Crit Range is just 1 greater, it's just that having a vastly broader Crit Range just moves the transition point earlier (for a given Crit-multiplicable damage bonus).
NOTE: if you have NO damage bonuses that multiply on a Crit, the point at which a Scimitar out-does a Longsword is going to be signifigantly delayed, since the only thing being multiplied is base weapon damage dice (which Longsword is ahead on). But all the builds being compared (and commonly played) all have signifigant static damage bonuses (STR, WpnSpec, etc).
All that is for average AC targets... for high AC targets, Longsword would probably pull ahead - or delay the transition point (especially for Full Attacks with Iteratives at lower to-hit/Confirm), but likewise low AC targets would favor Scimitar further... You can assume that those balance out (and the average results apply), or adjust to fit the actual enemy/target set that predominates in your home game. Such adjustments are just as valid as adjusting for the actual point-buy you use, etc. DPR Olympics is meant to model the average game with average opponents in play, and that is what it's valid for.
As mentioned, the actual DPR winner is Falcata which doesn't have THE maximum Crit Range, but it's combo of good Crit Range with good Crit Multiplier results in a net package that is even more optimum than Scimitar, although just as dependant on Crits for that damage.
4th edition did away with expanded crit ranges and I don't think it was wrong to do so. For the most part each weapon group had it's merits.
I like your idea of simply adding +1 to the range though. I might allow the feat bonus and keen edge to stack though, perhaps with 17-20 as the maximum range.
Hi Master Arminas,
I ran a seven month long campaign last year using the exact rules that you mentioned.
I found the results rather satisfying. Crits occurred with less frequency and it definitely had an impact on my players weapon choices.
You should try it. I think it is probably exactly what you are looking for.
I am currently using the crit rules as written because I am running AP's with some players new to gaming and I wanted them to have to deal with as few house rules as possible, but I often think of how I would like to return to those crit dynamics.
Weslocke of Phazdaliom
Right, so basically, at low level with few to no static damage bonuses, a longsword is superior to a scimitar, and at higher levels, a scimitar is superior to a longsword.
yup. of course, getting keen or imp crit at low levels is practically impossible.
(once you can afford a +1 amulet of might fist, keen is doable, but UAS/NatWpns don't have good Crit stats)
and getting static attack/damage bonus is probably more effective at the lowest levels anyways.
One thing that DPR Olypmics will never replicate for certainty is the inconsistency with dice rolls, given that most low cost manufactured dice get misshapped when rock polished to remove blemishes, making them more likely to roll 9/12s and less likely to roll 1/20s due to an altered center of gravity.
Funny; my dice do exactly the opposite; middle numbers are rare, and I usually get high or low numbers. It gives pretty much everyone a 50% to hit or miss. :-)
If you want true randomness, or as close as you can get on this earth, go to random.org and print out a page of 1-20 results.
I actually really like this. It shakes up the "optimal build" weapons a bit (myself, I'm in the boat of eye-rolling every time the kukri-toting "Arthurian" Paladins come kicking down the door), and opens the door for stacking those +Crit abilities.
It should be noted that this is precisely how crits work in the Star Wars: Revised and Expanded rules. That system uses the vitality/wound point system like the optional PF rules. Anyone interested in trying those optional vitality/wound point rules would probably find them much more to their liking if they also adjusted critical threat ranges in this fashion. If you also mixed in the hero point rules it would result in a more "cinematic" game (and a lot less TPK's) without compromising the danger. Your PC's are still never more than one crit away from a real bad day.
It is also worth mentioning that both these proposed crit threat ranges and the vitality/wound point system originated in Mongoose Games Spycraft system and were adopted by WotC for D20 Star Wars.
Right, so basically, at low level with few to no static damage bonuses, a longsword is superior to a scimitar, and at higher levels, a scimitar is superior to a longsword.
Pretty much, yes. With even a modest static bonus, a scimitar or rapier beats a longsword, a katana beats a bastard sword, and a falchion beats a greatsword.
That's one reason I would advocate giving the lower threat range weapons some greater functionality to compensate.
Edit: I would say that if you only allow improved Crit and keen a +1 to threat range, stacking the two should no longer be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we're going to nerf melee people even more for the sole reason of making some lesser effective weapons more popular?
Why not just adjust the crappy weapons with good names to make them no crappy?
Or rename the new weps to the old weps names, so that "longswords" (or whatever floats your boat) is the more popular item?
Not sure I can really get behind the idea of screwing over melee folks just to make them choose some random named item that you think isn't getting the love it used to get.
Just rename the stats to whatever weapon name floats your boat, and keep rolling along. No mechanics need to change to achieve your fluff objective.
-S
Why not just adjust the crappy weapons with good names to make them no crappy?
This is what we should be doing, I agree.