What would be wrong with letting keen and improved critical stack?

[DarkSoul]

With the supremacy of casters, this seems like a simple way to help mundanes increase their damage output a little.

Is there something I'm not thinking of that would make this a bad idea?

[Kelb_Panthera]

With the supremacy of casters, this seems like a simple way to help mundanes increase their damage output a little.

Is there something I'm not thinking of that would make this a bad idea?

It makes crit stacking too easy. If effects that can double crit ranges are allowed to stack without restriction, it becomes trivial to make it so that every hit is a crit and stacking crit-trigger effects with every hit quickly gets out of hand in the same way charge-stacking does.

Generally, if given the choice to raise the power of non-casters and lowering the power of casters, you should pick the latter. Both would be better still but the problem with melee isn't a lack of damage-dealing capability, it's a lack of effective, non-damage, class-based options.

[Zanos]

Damage is actually the last thing mundanes typically need help doing more of.

[Honest Tiefling]

Also doesn't do squiddy poop squat against constructs and undead, two nasty types of foes. It takes up an enchantment slot on the weapon, or creates an reliance on the spell casters to cast it, or UMD to cast it themselves. As mentioned, Beatstick classes are pretty good at the damage, the problem is keeping them upright to do it and getting them in range to do such. So it's a whole lotta help where they don't need it, and not much where they do.

[eggynack]

I agree that it's not anywhere near a world changing thing. Really, it's not even a thing I'd bother writing down were I to theoretically attempt to create a fix of some kind. However, I don't think it's a bad idea, strictly speaking. There are a couple of corner cases where it's going to make a specific melee build way more powerful, but it's very rarely going to be overpowered in a general sense.

[Willie the Duck]

With the supremacy of casters, this seems like a simple way to help mundanes increase their damage output a little.

Is there something I'm not thinking of that would make this a bad idea?

I don't think we can always fall back on the supremacy of full casters to justify any and every change we want to make to martials.

That said, this change wouldn't be more powerful than some things that have been put in, like whirling frenzy barbarian, ToB, or Shock Trooper. The main reason I'm not in favor is that I feel that crit-hunting is already a viable method that doesn't need any boosting. Instead, those builds need to be given something to do when the constructs show up, or there is a problem that can't be solved by rolling to-hit and damage.

[ekarney]

According to Sean K. Reynolds, absolutely nothing. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html)

I mean I've allowed it, and whilst the character who used it teared a hole in reality, it wasn't because of crit stacking.

[animewatcha]

Get rerolls for cases of Nat 1. Lightning Maces feat. Aptitude weapon. High crit weapon and correct abilities for a 1-20 crit range. "These are the attacks that never end..."

[Eldariel]

In 3.0, it used to be this way and everyone went about their merry ways. Either is fine, to be honest, but your options in critbuilding are still rather limited if that's the only one. I also prefer playing martials who don't have to rely on given magic items for basic functioning.

[ahenobarbi]

Damage is actually the last thing mundanes typically need help doing more of.

I disagree. Mundanes have a few ways of doing respectable damage but they do not fit some concepts, so adding another way for them to do respectable damage is a good thing (allowing more concepts to be implemented).


Get rerolls for cases of Nat 1. Lightning Maces feat. Aptitude weapon. High crit weapon and correct abilities for a 1-20 crit range. "These are the attacks that never end..."

The exploit works without crit-stacking.


Also doesn't do squiddy poop squat against constructs and undead, two nasty types of foes. It takes up an enchantment slot on the weapon, or creates an reliance on the spell casters to cast it, or UMD to cast it themselves. As mentioned, Beatstick classes are pretty good at the damage, the problem is keeping them upright to do it and getting them in range to do such. So it's a whole lotta help where they don't need it, and not much where they do.

Yeah, it not working on undead/constructs sucks. Yeah, it doesn't do much for beatsticks. But it's a nice thing for folks wanting to play mundane that isn't a huge pile of muscles.


It makes crit stacking too easy. If effects that can double crit ranges are allowed to stack without restriction, it becomes trivial to make it so that every hit is a crit and stacking crit-trigger effects with every hit quickly gets out of hand in the same way charge-stacking does.

Weapon enchantments are terribly overpriced, I don't recall any crit-activated effects that would be actually troublesome if they activated on every hit (actually that may make them worth the money).


Generally, if given the choice to raise the power of non-casters and lowering the power of casters, you should pick the latter.

Or not. A lot of people like the former better.


Both would be better still but the problem with melee isn't a lack of damage-dealing capability, it's a lack of effective, non-damage, class-based options.

Unless you approach this from a different angle. Don't think about adding this to a uberchager who already can do more damage than they need. Think about building a skill-based character who (with this modification) can get a reasonable damage in many situation for much lower cost than previously (no class levels, no need to invest in strength they don't need for anything else) so they can spend more on expanding their options.

[martixy]

I disagree. Mundanes have a few ways of doing respectable damage but they do not fit some concepts, so adding another way for them to do respectable damage is a good thing (allowing more concepts to be implemented).
I agree with expanding options. But not across the board. Targeted, precision changes.


The exploit works without crit-stacking.
Whatever do you mean? Expanding threat range is the main way to increase that exploit's "exploity-ness".
And if you refer to using Disciple of Dispater, I am sorry to inform you, that counts as crit stacking.


Yeah, it not working on undead/constructs sucks. Yeah, it doesn't do much for beatsticks. But it's a nice thing for folks wanting to play mundane that isn't a huge pile of muscles.
Not really. There's weapon crystals.


Weapon enchantments are terribly overpriced, I don't recall any crit-activated effects that would be actually troublesome if they activated on every hit (actually that may make them worth the money).
Well, not terribly overpriced IMO, but I'd certainly want to see a way TWF wasn't twice as expensive as 2H.


Or not. A lot of people like the former better.
I do to. Agree with you on that.


Unless you approach this from a different angle. Don't think about adding this to a uberchager who already can do more damage than they need. Think about building a skill-based character who (with this modification) can get a reasonable damage in many situation for much lower cost than previously (no class levels, no need to invest in strength they don't need for anything else) so they can spend more on expanding their options.
However this argument is void.
If a skill-based character gets to do reasonable damage this way, the same trick will be twice as effective on a character optimized for damage.
Unless he somehow lacked access to that trick.
Hence the need for good class features, as Kelb noted.

[Seward]

Probably worried about effects that proc from crits.

Didn't want them happening every other swing.

I can't think of anything really awful offhand, except for the epic feat that forces a save or die on each crit, which can be rather hard when an epic TWF guy with scimitars is getting 8 attacks a round and is surrounded by anything critable.

OTOH, such an individual is epic, and nothing should be able to survive being near them, or within range of the epic charge-pounce-first-round-of-combat feat whose name I can't remember.

[Gildedragon]

Read SKRs thing. His argument seems sound. I shall allow stacking from now on at my games... If it burns me I'll let the playground know.

[Quertus]

Things allowing crit range stacking enables:

a nice feel to a finesse character :smallsmile:
decent damage from a crit / finesse character :smallbiggrin:
uberchargers to kill the monsters 4x over, instead of just 2x over :smallconfused:
more reliable use of bonus HP from body feeder :smallsmile:
more reliable use of mind feeder :smallamused:
dishing out lots of negative levels :smallsmile:
infinite attacks :smalleek:
infinite negative levels :smalleek:
profit! :smallcool:


I like letting martial characters have nice things, so I say go for it!

[Zanos]

Read SKRs thing. His argument seems sound. I shall allow stacking from now on at my games... If it burns me I'll let the playground know.
I doubt it will break your game or anything, but SKRs logic is deeply flawed. As soon as he discounts strength bonuses his argument loses a lot of weight. Bonus damage from strength is multiplied on crits, and for primary hit it with a stick type characters, tends to make up more of their weapon damage than the weapons base damage dice. A falchion is numerically better than a high str character than a greatsword, since the high in base damage is insignificant compared to the increased threat range. He's also making comparisons that aren't really equitable. He should be comparing the damage of an 18-20 weapon with improved crit and keen, vs the damage of an 18-20 weapon with improved crit or keen, and seeing if the increase in damage is in line with other options that a character could invest a feat slot or +1 weapon bonus into.

[mauk2]

With the supremacy of casters, this seems like a simple way to help mundanes increase their damage output a little.

Is there something I'm not thinking of that would make this a bad idea?


In the D20 game me and a buddy are writing, (see sig) we completely rebuilt how crit range works. Doubling is a dumb idea, and whoever thought of it should be ashamed of themselves.

Instead, ALL crit feats and abilities are adders, usually +1 each, and they ALL stack.

Yes, this means that making a crit build is more work, but also much less cheesy.

To balance the additional damage output of the martials, we rebuilt the monsters from the ground up.

[gadren]

I'm all for improving martials, but damage isn't really what they need help with, it's versatility. (See my thread on improving skills to the power of spells: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484871-Improving-skills-to-the-power-utility-of-spells )

However, MOST of the time crit stacking isn't that big of a deal, it's the corner cases that build for it that cause problems. For example, with crit stacking and lightning mace style, it is possible to get infinite attacks. (I'm sure there's similar possible shenanigans in a PF-only game, too.)
Perhaps allow crit stacking, but limit characters to 1 critical hit per turn? Maybe 2? Or set a static threat cap, like 12-20 being the best possible.

[martixy]

I'm all for improving martials, but damage isn't really what they need help with, it's versatility. (See my thread on improving skills to the power of spells: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484871-Improving-skills-to-the-power-utility-of-spells )

However, MOST of the time crit stacking isn't that big of a deal, it's the corner cases that build for it that cause problems. For example, with crit stacking and lightning mace style, it is possible to get infinite attacks. (I'm sure there's similar possible shenanigans in a PF-only game, too.)
Perhaps allow crit stacking, but limit characters to 1 critical hit per turn? Maybe 2? Or set a static threat cap, like 12-20 being the best possible.

I like the last one best.
12-20 is reasonable. The best you can get in 3.5-only mode is 13-20 anyway.

[Honest Tiefling]

I would be sorely tempted to limit the number of criticals to the base BAB (I am aware that is an oxymoron, but I mean without Divine Power or similar shennigans). It might hurt rogues a bit. Either capping the crit range or reducing keen/Improved criticals to flat bonuses seem good, but I personally like the latter as it would make weapons with a lesser crit range more viable as the difference would be lesser. Maybe a little higher then +1...

[kalasulmar]

Here's a thought : use AOO limits as critical rider limits. You would have to grab Combat Reflexes and pump Dex to maximize the number of extra attacks or effects that crits grant. Would also help limit damage by reducing their ability to pump STR by placing that premium on Dex.

[darkdragoon]

Generally, if given the choice to raise the power of non-casters and lowering the power of casters, you should pick the latter. Both would be better still but the problem with melee isn't a lack of damage-dealing capability, it's a lack of effective, non-damage, class-based options.

Making a spell more useful is in effect a buff to casters. Particularly gishes.

[gadren]

Making a spell more useful is in effect a buff to casters. Particularly gishes.

We're not talking about a spell, though? We're talking about a magic item ability and a feat.

[darkdragoon]

Which would also effect Keen Edge. And depending on how often you need the effect, a couple scrolls are cheaper than the enhancement or scabbard, especially if you're using more than one kind of weapon.

[Quertus]

In the D20 game me and a buddy are writing, (see sig) we completely rebuilt how crit range works. Doubling is a dumb idea, and whoever thought of it should be ashamed of themselves.

Instead, ALL crit feats and abilities are adders, usually +1 each, and they ALL stack.

Yes, this means that making a crit build is more work, but also much less cheesy.

To balance the additional damage output of the martials, we rebuilt the monsters from the ground up.

Doubling the threat range on 18-20 x2, and 20 x4 has the same net effect to average damage; adding a +1 to that range for those two attacks does not.

[RedMage125]

In 3.0 they stacked (as mentioned by SKR), but there were also a few odd weapons with a natural 17-20 threat range (bladed gauntlet I think).

Corner case here (VERY corner), but such a weapon with crit stacking would have a 9-20 threat range. It only did 1d4 damage with a x2 modifier, but flaming burst/icy burst/shocking burst enchant would make it a lot more worthwhile.

I'm not actually opposed to the idea in general. In my 3.5e games, however, I don't do it, because I give my players the choice when we start: Use/Discard Confirmation Rolls. If they discard, then any critical threat is a critical hit, but that sword cuts two ways, and the monsters will use the same rules. I have explained to them, that on a long enough timeline, such a rule works AGAINST the players, because player AC is typically higher than monster AC, and threats against them are less likely to confirm. Still, getting a crit is exciting and fun. My group currently has discarded confirm rolls.

They get ONE chance to reverse this decision at any time (between sessions). If they decide that they are taking too many crits, they can reverse the decision and go with confirmation rolls. But once they do, that's it, no going back.

Because I do this, I will not allow crit stacking with my current group, because 15-20 threat-no-confirm-crits may get out of hand. But for somone still using confirm rolls, I think it should be okay.

[gadren]

Which would also effect Keen Edge. And depending on how often you need the effect, a couple scrolls are cheaper than the enhancement or scabbard, especially if you're using more than one kind of weapon.

Why would it also affect keen edge? The keen weapon property and the Keen Edge spell are two different things.

[zergling.exe]

I'm not actually opposed to the idea in general. In my 3.5e games, however, I don't do it, because I give my players the choice when we start: Use/Discard Confirmation Rolls. If they discard, then any critical threat is a critical hit, but that sword cuts two ways, and the monsters will use the same rules. I have explained to them, that on a long enough timeline, such a rule works AGAINST the players, because player AC is typically higher than monster AC, and threats against them are less likely to confirm. Still, getting a crit is exciting and fun. My group currently has discarded confirm rolls.

They get ONE chance to reverse this decision at any time (between sessions). If they decide that they are taking too many crits, they can reverse the decision and go with confirmation rolls. But once they do, that's it, no going back.

Because I do this, I will not allow crit stacking with my current group, because 15-20 threat-no-confirm-crits may get out of hand. But for somone still using confirm rolls, I think it should be okay.

I realize this is a houserule, but are you aware that non-20s have to hit AC before they are actually a critical threat?

[RedMage125]

I realize this is a houserule, but are you aware that non-20s have to hit AC before they are actually a critical threat?
Yes. The game started recently, so they just hit level 3. All dice rolls of 18+ have been hitting the AC of the creatures they've been fighting anyway.

BTW, my table rule on critical misses is to still use a confirmation roll. A roll of 1 on the die means a confirmation roll is rolled, with all the same modifiers. If the confirm roll "hits", then it'should just a regular miss. If it misses, critical failure. Something like dropping weapon, provoking an AoO, falling prone, or likewise something bad.

[Telonius]

With the supremacy of casters, this seems like a simple way to help mundanes increase their damage output a little.

Is there something I'm not thinking of that would make this a bad idea?

A caster will somehow figure out how to get both Keen and Improved Critical on a ray.

[Quertus]

A caster will somehow figure out how to get both Keen and Improved Critical on a ray.

Always keep their finger holstered in a Scabbard of Keen Edges? :smalltongue:

[Bobby Baratheon]

My group also discarded the crit confirmation rule, though for our next campaign (I'm the DM) I'm thinking about making only natural 20's autocrits and have other crit rolls (like a nat 19 on a greatsword) require confirmation. We haven't had any undue balance problems with it - frankly, our main damage was the dragonfire inspiration bard and the sorcerer, though autocrits did tend to favor the players in boss fights. They managed to kill one of the long term enemies solely through two rounds of lucky crits. I think crit stacking is fine to a certain point - I think the 12-20 max crit stacking is a good range. Not every attack will be a crit, but those are the attacks that are already likely to hit unless you're facing really low AC enemies. Also, this only really becomes an issue if you have crit-fisher players or NPCs. As a DM I avoid the latter, and have never had the former in my groups.

[Barbarian Horde]

With the supremacy of casters, this seems like a simple way to help mundanes increase their damage output a little.

Is there something I'm not thinking of that would make this a bad idea?

I'm not saying I wouldn't abuse this... but If I can build to crit on a two I will... hello Profane Burst.. 1d4 con damage every turn... but Id be two weapon fighting so more like 2d4 a turn. Id need to play some sort of crit fisher build though. Grab what ever items I can to add to the confirm roll.

Truedeath Crystal, maybe? As for undead.. Contructs not so good.

[gadren]

I'm not saying I wouldn't abuse this... but If I can build to crit on a two I will... hello Profane Burst.. 1d4 con damage every turn... but Id be two weapon fighting so more like 2d4 a turn. Id need to play some sort of crit fisher build though. Grab what ever items I can to add to the confirm roll.

Truedeath Crystal, maybe? As for undead.. Contructs not so good.
You can crit constructs with a demolition crystal IIRC

[mauk2]

Doubling the threat range on 18-20 x2, and 20 x4 has the same net effect to average damage; adding a +1 to that range for those two attacks does not.

Yes?

More importantly, who cares? A weapon that does 19-20 x2 crits is different from a 20 x4 weapon, and that's perfectly acceptable.

Indeed, in my mind, that's actually a positive. Weapons should be different and do different and cool things. There is exactly zero reason in the game mechanics to care if one crit range has different effects from another crit range.

In play styles, if a character wants LOTS of crits, they can start with an 18-20 x2 weapon and stack up lots of plusses, and they get lots of crits.

If they want fewer but bigger crits, they start with a 20 x4 weapon.

Can you generate more max damage with the 20 x 4 weapon? Maybe, if the dice cooperate? Crit builds are highly dependent upon luck, after all. Your performance may vary wildly. :) However, doing it the additive way means that not everybody building for crits automatically reaches for a kukri. Suddenly, those picks are looking pretty good. Variety is the spice of life, etc.

Also, we have rebuilt pretty much every weapon, on top of changing how crits work.

Observe:

https://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Weapons