[3.5] Stacking Improved Critical with Keen/Impact

[BizzaroStormy]

Now, we all know that as far as RAW are concerned, these simply do not stack.

My question is, why shouldn't they?

Impact/Keen enchantments ar augments to the weapon itself to crit more often while the Improved Critical feat is a bump in the wielders skill to crit more often. I personally see no reason why the two shouldn't stack aside from a small balance issue in a game where players can turn inside out, the laws of physics or where a small lizard man can become a god with a bit of thinking.

Where do the rest of you stand on this?

[Mr.Bookworm]

Now, we all know that as far as RAW are concerned, these simply do not stack.

My question is, why shouldn't they?

Impact/Keen enchantments ar augments to the weapon itself to crit more often while the Improved Critical feat is a bump in the wielders skill to crit more often. I personally see no reason why the two shouldn't stack aside from a small balance issue in a game where players can turn inside out, the laws of physics or where a small lizard man can become a god with a bit of thinking.

Where do the rest of you stand on this?

Balancing issues.

I'm sure I could come up with a fluff argument, but it could lead to serious brokenness.

[Dr Bwaa]

I agree wholeheartedly, from a flavor standpoint they should stack. You also can't get improved crit until what, level 9 or 8 as a straight fighter? This is about the time spellcasters begin crushing melee-types out of the water; I don't see any problem from a balance standpoint either.
Yes, I said crushing out of the water. Shut up shut up shut up! =P

[BizzaroStormy]

Care to explain why, from a fluff point, they wouldn't stack? The only way I can see that happening is if the enchant explicitly stated that it increased the wielders ability to crit. This wouldnt make sense since if you're dual wielding a regular dagger and a keen dagger, they dont both have increased crit chance.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The reason they don't stack is a balance issue, WotC made a lot of things dependent on both the frequency of criticals and the power of the crit. Combining the 2 would make some options overpowered, because an effect that only activates on a crit on a weapon with 17-20x4 would be pretty bad. That's the theory, at least. But WotC are idiots, so what do we know?

[Siosilvar]

Care to explain why, from a fluff point, they wouldn't stack?

He said he didn't see a problem from a balance standpoint either, so I believe that that was just a small typo on his part.

In any case, I never saw the point of not stacking them.

[Dr Bwaa]

He said he didn't see a problem from a balance standpoint either, so I believe that that was just a small typo on his part.

In any case, I never saw the point of not stacking them.

Ahem. Yes. Fixed now!

[Zeful]

The only reason they made them not stack was the fact that when they did, you could have a scimitar that critted on an 12 (18-20, 2 numbers. keen doubles the range, making it 4 numbers, and improved critical doubles the base again for 6 number differential). Crits are also auto hits. Meaning you can hit a guy with 150 AC with a 12 (+0 Bab), you won't get a critical hit, but you miss only 55% of the time, when you shouldn't be able to hit at all.

[The Glyphstone]

I think it was part of the knee-jerk reaction to crit stacking in 3.0, because of how Vorpal triggered off any crit. Insta-gibbing any single-headed enemy on a 10+ or 12+ wasn't seen as a good idea.

So naturally, they crippled crit stacking along with Vorpal...guilt by association, I guess.

[Zeful]

The Vorpal to Natural 20 (or better yet non-magic weapon threat) makes some ammount of sense, I'd let it Improved Crit also increase vorpal's usefullness, but wouldn't let Keen work with it. It'd work a little better that way.

[tyckspoon]

. Crits are also auto hits. Meaning you can hit a guy with 150 AC with a 12 (+0 Bab), you won't get a critical hit, but you miss only 55% of the time, when you shouldn't be able to hit at all.

The rules wish to register a differing opinion.

Increased Threat Range

Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn’t result in a hit is not a threat. (emphasis added)

[drengnikrafe]

The rules wish to register a differing opinion.

You have a very good point, tyckspoon. I only am left to ask you this: how many people were actually aware of this rule? It would appear it was you, and people who didn't read this thread very carefully. This means you would be able to get away with it for a very long time, since nobody would think a rule like that would exist, unless they looked it up in dire circumstances or were very knowledgeable about all the rules. And that is where the problem comes in. Misinterpretation of the rules.

[Magnor Criol]

You have a very good point, tyckspoon. I only am left to ask you this: how many people were actually aware of this rule? It would appear it was you, and people who didn't read this thread very carefully. This means you would be able to get away with it for a very long time, since nobody would think a rule like that would exist, unless they looked it up in dire circumstances or were very knowledgeable about all the rules. And that is where the problem comes in. Misinterpretation of the rules.

I knew about that rule, and I'm hardly very knowledgeable about the rules.

Nat 20s can produce some awesome effects, but unless your character can normally hit the enemy with their to-hit bonuses plus 20, it won't autohit. At least not in the games I play.

[ocato]

I might note the inherent dishonesty of knowing a rule and purposely subverting it in the face of DM ignorance in a game that is meant to be played by a group of friends or acquaintances. That kind of thinking might ruin a group. Yes, the DM's job is to know the rules and keep you in check. No, that doesn't mean the idea of the game is to con the DM. (S)He's a person, (s)he'll miss things from time to time.

Nat 20s can produce some awesome effects, but unless your character can normally hit the enemy with their to-hit bonuses plus 20, it won't autohit. At least not in the games I play.

According to RAW, a 20 always hits. While it's an interesting houserule to remove that, I can't say I'd be entirely enthusiastic. Especially since a natural 20 is sometimes the only way for a meleer to stop a super powered enemy/PC with excess AC. Melee has enough problems, I say give them their guaranteed 5% chance to hit.

[drengnikrafe]

^
I stand corrected, but defend myself by saying I didn't know that rule.

[ocato]

^
I stand corrected, but defend myself by saying I didn't know that rule.

There is no shame in playing the game by a mutual misinterpretation/ignorance of the rules. My group used to add our Base Attacks to our damage and roll a d8 for initiative (don't ask why, the DM taught us to play and that's what he said to do).

However if you know it doesn't work that way and try to do it anyway because you don't think anyone else will notice, then that's a bit low.

[afroakuma]

From 3.0's Improved Critical feat:

Note: "Keen" magic weapons also double their normal nonmagical threat range. As with all double doublings, the result is triple.

That rule makes it much more reasonable. I'm inclined to think abuse of some poorly thought out PrC's and selective advantageous mathematics, coupled with some DM forgettings, are what made critical ranges so brutal. This is the rule I use in 3.5.

[drengnikrafe]

There is no shame in playing the game by a mutual misinterpretation/ignorance of the rules. My group used to add our Base Attacks to our damage and roll a d8 for initiative (don't ask why, the DM taught us to play and that's what he said to do).

However if you know it doesn't work that way and try to do it anyway because you don't think anyone else will notice, then that's a bit low.

I will agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. Knowing abuse of the rules is just mean. I mean that in multiple ways, such as...
A) Pun-Pun, or that thing where you pack yourself with hidden blades as a thri-keen and get your sneak attack damage to hit alongside your daggers 14-some-odd times.
B) What you just said; knowing the rules, and deliberately misinterpreting them in a way that you hoped other's wouldn't notice.

[BizzaroStormy]

I know I was never aware of that rule (until now) and im fairly certain my DM didn't know of it earlier.

[BobVosh]

I will agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. Knowing abuse of the rules is just mean. I mean that in multiple ways, such as...
A) Pun-Pun, or that thing where you pack yourself with hidden blades as a thri-keen and get your sneak attack damage to hit alongside your daggers 14-some-odd times.
B) What you just said; knowing the rules, and deliberately misinterpreting them in a way that you hoped other's wouldn't notice.

How many books does it take to make Pun-Pun, or that Thri-Keen?

Takes two for this, both core. DMG and PHB. They also had to nerf it because it was silly in 3.0. Almost every meleer had it.

[TheGrimace]

Takes four four the thri-keen.

Anyway, I play where threat range bonuses stack, although I've mitigated some of the crit activated powers. Namely, I don't think anyone, friend or foe (or Balor for that matter) has wielded a vorpal weapon in well over a year.

Although, if we take a look at (well gorsh, is it complete Warrior?) We stumble upon the stump knife.

and then, dang, something about the weapon master, or exotic weapons master, or some jazz like that.

17-20 base (four numbers)
13-20 keen (eight numbers)
9-20 imp crit (12 numbers)
7-20 Ki Crit (14 numbers)

well yes, my vorpal weapon does have a 70 percent chance of insta killing the BBEG, I'll take my treasure now, thank you (I hope its a +2 keen vorpal stump knife!)

[MeklorIlavator]

Uhh...vorpal only activates on a natural 20, and you still have to be able to hit the BBEG with such a low number.

[Cuddly]

According to RAW, a 20 always hits. While it's an interesting houserule to remove that, I can't say I'd be entirely enthusiastic. Especially since a natural 20 is sometimes the only way for a meleer to stop a super powered enemy/PC with excess AC. Melee has enough problems, I say give them their guaranteed 5% chance to hit.

I don't think that's a houserule. Just an awkwardly worded "if it the attack doesn't equal the AC of the target, it doesn't hit."

[sleepy]

3.5 vorpal decapitates only on a natural 20, though.

And while massive crit ranges sounds a little dangerous, does it really push a character relying on attack rolls above a caster class at the levels where it starts getting big? Don't shock trooping leap attacking pounce charging characters of that level tend to have more of an issue connecting than dealing enough damage once they're in your face?

[SoD]

Vorpal
This potent and feared ability allows the weapon to sever the heads of those it strikes. Upon a roll of natural 20 (followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit), the weapon severs the opponent’s head (if it has one) from its body. Some creatures, such as many aberrations and all oozes, have no heads. Others, such as golems and undead creatures other than vampires, are not affected by the loss of their heads. Most other creatures, however, die when their heads are cut off. A vorpal weapon must be a slashing weapon. (If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.)

Strong necromancy and transmutation; CL 18th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, circle of death, keen edge; Price +5 bonus.

Important bit bolded. I know it's just been mentioned, but now it's done with a quote, for that extra juiciness.

[JaxGaret]

I don't think that's a houserule. Just an awkwardly worded "if it the attack doesn't equal the AC of the target, it doesn't hit."

No, a nat 20 is an auto-hit by RAW.

Automatic Misses and Hits
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

[BobVosh]

Actually in the DMG it is an optional rule.

So is confirming the crit. Which due to the surprising lack of knowledge I'll post in my own words since I am at work. Roll nat 20, autohit. Roll to confirm for crit. This means roll your attack again, if it hits you get all the juicy crittiness. If not you just get your regular attack damage.

[Curmudgeon]

You'll want to read this: Rant: If Keen and Improved Critical Don't Stack, The Terrorists Will Have Won by Sean K. Reynolds.

[Blackfang108]

Balancing issues.

I'm sure I could come up with a fluff argument, but it could lead to serious brokenness.

IN one of my campaigns, my DM decided to rule that Keen and Imp Crit Stack, and it hasn't lead to any balancing issues.

Granted, I'm the only one it (currently) Matters for, and I'm using a 1 number range weapon. (Halberd)

He ruled that instead of doubling the range again, having both of them triples the initial range. So a 20 weapon crits on 18-20.

Of course, if I rolled within that range more than once every thirty attack rolls, it might be a bit less balanced, but there isn't that much fighting.

EDIT: And we are using the Confirm critical rules. That helps a bit, too.

[TheGrimace]

yeah, I get that vorpal only works on a 20, but that is not the case in 3.0, where keen and imp crit do stack, so I don't feel like the comparison is totally unreasonable.


Has anyone voted against this yet?