I've been annoyed for a long time now that the longsword/bastard sword/katana fighter just doesn't feel like a master swordsman at high level when compared to someone with a higher crit threat - not least because the fighter's "weapon mastery" at 20 is all about better critical hits. To address that, plus give a boon to dexterity fighters, plus encourage ability balance, I'm thinking of suggesting a new feat if I get into a new group:
Long-Blade Mastery - Dexterity 13, base attack bonus +5
While wielding a longsword, bastard sword or katana without a shield or offhand weapon, you may use your dexterity instead of strength to hit, and may consider your weapon's natural critical threat to be 18-20 (doubles normally with improved critical or keen).
Any opinions on whether its overpowered / underpowered / will get me laughed at / will get me yelled at? I've tried to restrict it to giving more balanced str/dex fighters love and making a long-blade fighter not feel like a chump compared to the guy who brought a scimitar when their base weapon die stops mattering compared to 50% more crits. The guy with the scimitar hopefully feels like his not having to spend a feat means its not unbalanced. I could also put in weapon finesse as a prerequisite, or say that the critical threat doesn't improve unless you actually do use your dexterity to hit.
Oh, my assumption that the katana was still regarded as a bastard sword was false... looks like the katana backers finally got their hooks in. Hard not to laugh at the fact after all the back and forth rage over the katana the one thing they could have easily gotten right - the weight - they didn't. I suppose that would make this feat considerably less useful for the katana but it would still make it 'finessable'.
I would simply just have the feat make longswords, bastard swords, and katana's be subject to the Weapon Finesse feat when no using a shield or off-hand weapon.
Prerequisite for your feat could just be "Dexterity 13, Base Attack Bonus +3". The +3 BAB represents an above-average amount of martial skill.
I would also drop the bonus to crit range, rather unbalanced for the level. If you HAD to have something related to crits, I would just grant a +2 bonus to confirmation rolls with those weapons.
Right now, your feat is granting 2 feats for the price of one, Weapon Finesse and Improved Critical, which is not balanced. By only allowing those weapons to be subject to Weapon Finesse, the player must still take the Weapon Finesse feat and your feat, therefore 2 feats are required, making it balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem you are talking about actually has nothing to do with swords or whatever weapon.
It's simply a fact, that the d20 critical mechanic is pretty fuzzy.
IMO, the chances for critical hits (with any weapon!) should increase with the skill of the combatant and not on the weapon used.
Basically, a critical threat should occur if your attack roll supercedes the enemy's AC by a certain number of points (I'd say 10).
So, for every 10 points above the enemy's AC you inflict the weapon's damage one additional time.
Feats like "Improved Crit" could simply lower this threshold by 2 points or something like that.
Bottom line of this rule, the bigger the difference between two combatants, the bigger the chance of critical hits (by the better combatant of course).
The problem you are talking about actually has nothing to do with swords or whatever weapon.
It's simply a fact, that the d20 critical mechanic is pretty fuzzy.
IMO, the chances for critical hits (with any weapon!) should increase with the skill of the combatant and not on the weapon used.
Basically, a critical threat should occur if your attack roll supercedes the enemy's AC by a certain number of points (I'd say 10).
So, for every 10 points above the enemy's AC you inflict the weapon's damage one additional time.
Feats like "Improved Crit" could simply lower this threshold by 2 points or something like that.
Bottom line of this rule, the bigger the difference between two combatants, the bigger the chance of critical hits (by the better combatant of course).
This is a very interesting point of view. I like the idea that all weapons have the same base crit range (but possibly still have different multipliers?).
Care to elaborate (or maybe start another thread so this one isn't jacked)?
@ DracoDruid:
I have a couple of things I'd like to point out about your idea, Draco, so I'll second for a new thread.
I like Draco's idea as well. That is very interesting.
The problem you are talking about actually has nothing to do with swords or whatever weapon.
It's simply a fact, that the d20 critical mechanic is pretty fuzzy.
IMO, the chances for critical hits (with any weapon!) should increase with the skill of the combatant and not on the weapon used.
I would totally agree. If I was in a position to start really redefining weapon rules, I would also go in and streamline much of the system to be more general - for example, a scimitar, a longsword, a Chinese jian etc were all 'longswords' and you chose your weapon for flavor. I've known people to basically say "I'm using a scimitar. I'm calling it a longsword. I want to RP what works for my guy without having a much crappier sword master at high levels." In a nutshell that's what I'm trying to fix without starting to really change rules. In regard to the other feedback, the point about prerequisite weapon finesse taken; regarding the critical modifier being too powerful... I understand, but the power of threat range is kind of the point. Anyhow, things to ponder, thanks for the input.
Yeah, weapons in general could use some kind of redesign. Honestly, the damage die or dice of a weapon is sort of negligible when you look at all the static damage bonuses classes get at latter levels (weapon training, favored enemy, smite, high Str, etc.). You're looking at a damage difference of 1-8 with most one handed weapons and adding significantly more static damage (which is generally a reflection of your proficiency with that weapon or your skill at facing a particular threat).
It seems like the real choices you make when you select a weapon (for damage purposes, not combat maneuvers) are focused around the critical threat ranges and/or modifiers, which is a crummy way of doing things.
(Unrelated question: Does anyone else think there are way too many abilities built around criticals?)
An interesting concept for improving weapons based on skill of use might to be to change their damage rules to have the Dice type scale with BaB. Something like goes up one die step for every 5 Bab or something. Ie. A 5th level fighter wielding a scimitar gets a D8. Still not as good as the static bonus's floating around but it could be a start.
(Unrelated question: Does anyone else think there are way too many abilities built around criticals?)
Yes and no... A little bit yes because of the stuff above and because criticals can be so random; but no, in that for general flavor criticals doing special things brings excitement to the table. There is a sword move from an old German fencing manual (late medieval thin two-hand swords... think straight katana) called the 'squinter-cut' where you can potentially blind the enemy with his own blood if the cut is too light kill him.
http://www.higginssword.org/guild/study/classes/longsword_handout.pdf
-Page 18. This PDF is also a great bit of enlightenment for those who regard medieval European swordsmanship as crude hacking.
Ahh... okay, then.
I guess I'll start a new THINKTANK then about critical hits.
You are all welcome to join.
I'll try being there.
Well people, I started a new thread as requested, but only two replies since then.
Are you guys still interested?