[3.5] Keen + Improved Critical = ?
Tetsubo
enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
Also, do you use a bludgeoning version of Keen, such as Impact?
In my campaigns I stack Keen and Improved Critical and allow a
bludgeoning version of Keen. I don't mind fighters having nice things. :)
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
Daily Booth: http://dailybooth.com/Tetsubo
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
dr...@bin.sh
> In your 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns do the Keen magical weapon
> enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
yeah. i also retained the 3e norm of stacking enhancement bonuses
from ranged weapons and ammunition. never had a problem with it.
> Also, do you use a bludgeoning version of Keen, such as Impact?
was never requested, but its reasonable.
--
.--===-+---===--.
|> |\__|___/\---|= dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|| || ()= | | <| --------------------------------------------------------
|> |/~~|~~~\/---|= Drive Offensively
`--===-+---===--'
Yiddishwriter
They don't stack in 3.5 officially. That change from 3.0 was made
because people complained how often dedicated warriors got crits -
more of that fighters aren't allowed nice things claptrap.
I know I've read of a published weapon enchantment for bludgeoning
weapons that give it "Keen". It may have been called "Impact" or
maybe that's just a word I think would fit.
Gerald Katz
Keith Davies
> On Aug 22, 6:18�am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In your 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns do the Keen magical weapon
>> enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
>>
>> Also, do you use a bludgeoning version of Keen, such as Impact?
>>
>> In my campaigns I stack Keen and Improved Critical and allow a
>> bludgeoning version of Keen. I don't mind fighters having nice things. :)
>
> because people complained how often dedicated warriors got crits -
> more of that fighters aren't allowed nice things claptrap.
>
> I know I've read of a published weapon enchantment for bludgeoning
> weapons that give it "Keen". It may have been called "Impact" or
> maybe that's just a word I think would fit.
I called it 'crushing'.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Keith Davies
> In your 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns do the Keen magical weapon
> enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
RAW, they don't. I didn't see a problem with it, so I didn't adopt the
3.5 change here.
> Also, do you use a bludgeoning version of Keen, such as Impact?
I called it 'crushing', but yes.
I also allowed a 'piercing vorpal' called 'heartseeking'. I don't
remember a 'crushing vorpal' variant ('headsmashing'?) but I'm confident
I would've allowed one had someone asked.
> In my campaigns I stack Keen and Improved Critical and allow a
> bludgeoning version of Keen. I don't mind fighters having nice things. :)
Nor do I. I did keep the 'vorpal only on 20' rule, though I considered
allowing keen and whatnot to increase that as well.
Scitimar has an 18-20 threat range. You might see:
Description threaten behead
scimitar 18-20 -
+ keen 15-20 -
+ imp.crit 15-20 -
+ both 12-20 -
vorpal scimitar 18-20 20
+ keen 15-20 19-20
+ imp.crit 15-20 19-20
+ both 12-20 18-20
Whereas with a greataxe (20 threat range) you might see:
Description threaten behead
greataxe 20 -
+ keen 19-20 -
+ imp.crit 19-20 -
+ both 18-20 -
vorpal greataxe 20 20
+ keen 19-20 19-20
+ imp.crit 19-20 19-20
+ both 18-20 18-20
Jim Davies
> In your 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns do the Keen magical weapon
>enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
Never been relevant, but yes.
> Also, do you use a bludgeoning version of Keen, such as Impact?
Ditto.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Harold Groot
wrote:
> In your 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns do the Keen magical weapon
>enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
No, per PH/DMG.
> Also, do you use a bludgeoning version of Keen, such as Impact?
Yes, per MIC.
We do both per the RAW. While we have some House Rules, they don't
affect this area of play.
Tetsubo
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:18:33 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> In your 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns do the Keen magical weapon
>>enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
>
>
> No, per PH/DMG.
Do you have any other justification than RAW?
>
>
>
>> Also, do you use a bludgeoning version of Keen, such as Impact?
>
>
> Yes, per MIC.
>
> We do both per the RAW. While we have some House Rules, they don't
> affect this area of play.
>
>
Harold Groot
wrote:
>Harold Groot wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:18:33 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> In your 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns do the Keen magical weapon
>>>enhancement and the Improved Critical combat feat stack?
>> No, per PH/DMG.
> Do you have any other justification than RAW?
Well, the Combat-Oriented, Sneak Attack-oriented Rogue/Invisible
Blade/Swashbuckler/Fighter build I discussed here recently (my TPK
backup character) is already very highly powered with a Kukri (base
threat range 18-20) and Improved Critical (making 15-20 threat range).
Once the DM sees him in action there is a very real chance he will be
disallowed as "Too powerful" even though he's built per RAW. Giving
him a House Rule option for a Threat Range of 12-20 would just make
that worse.
The Warblade is our current primary damage-dealer, and has dealt out
over 170 hp of damage (the usual way, power attack w/2-h weapon,
hasted, etc.) in a round several times. While the Warblade has not
been tossed out of this game, the Bo9S in its entirety has been banned
for future characters. So the DM thinks he's too powerful. But keep
in mind that this Warblade got the benefit of many buffing spells to
do this.
My justification for my TPK Backup PC's high power level is that if
there is a TPK, our party must have been too weak for the dungeon
(pretty much by definition). Also, the other two backup characters
that I know something about are significantly WEAKER than the ones
they will be replacing (I know almost nothing about the last backup
character). The blaster (Warmage) is being replaced by a Beguiler.
The tank (Warblade) is being replaced by a Dread Necromancer. Both of
these are a big drop in dealing damage. So the party really needs a
strong melee character. And since there is no sign of major buffing
coming from the Beguiler or the Dread Necromancer, my new tank needs
to be stronger than the old tank EVEN WHILE UNBUFFED. So I built him
that way. But I'm stretching the boundaries already and I know it.
Tetsubo
I think you have found a flaw in the kukri rather than the stacking
issue. The short sword does 1d6 damage and a critical range of 19-2-/x2,
is a Piercing weapon. The battleaxe does 1d8 damage and a critical range
of 20/x3, does Slashing damage. The kukri does 1d4 damage and has a
critical range of 18-20/x2, does Slashing damage. My question is: Why?
In the real world a short sword and a kukri have basically the same
length blade. You can, quite readily slash with a short sword. You
admittedly can't thrust well with a kukri. But why is a kukri better at
inducing slashing damage than a battleaxe? The battleaxe is going to
create much larger, more grievous wounds. Which is reflected in the
increased damage die. But why is the critical range on a kukri so much
larger than a battleaxe? If the kukri design were so much more effective
over the battleaxe why wasn't that design as universal as the battleaxe?
Pretty much every culture that had access to metal evolved a battleaxe.
But a heavy bladed slashing knife is far less common.
I argue that the kukri should have the stats: 1d6 damage and a critical
range of 19-20/x2, doing Slashing damage. Make it a one-handed weapon
just like the short sword. It in effect becomes a slashing version of
the short sword.
Now, I realize that is not how the game presents these weapons. So,
going by a strict RAW reading, you are correct and I am wrong. But the
only rule I have ever written in stone is Rule Zero.
And for those that might ask, yes I do in fact own a short sword, a
kukri and a battleaxe.
Jim Davies
> I think you have found a flaw in the kukri rather than the stacking
>issue. The short sword does 1d6 damage and a critical range of 19-2-/x2,
>is a Piercing weapon. The battleaxe does 1d8 damage and a critical range
>of 20/x3, does Slashing damage. The kukri does 1d4 damage and has a
>critical range of 18-20/x2, does Slashing damage. My question is: Why?
The kukri is to the short sword as the scimitar is to the longsword: 1
die less but increased threat range. I don't hear people claiming that
the scimitar is overpowered.
Tetsubo
> On the grave of Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> is inscribed:
>
>
>> I think you have found a flaw in the kukri rather than the stacking
>>issue. The short sword does 1d6 damage and a critical range of 19-2-/x2,
>>is a Piercing weapon. The battleaxe does 1d8 damage and a critical range
>>of 20/x3, does Slashing damage. The kukri does 1d4 damage and has a
>>critical range of 18-20/x2, does Slashing damage. My question is: Why?
>
>
> The kukri is to the short sword as the scimitar is to the longsword: 1
> die less but increased threat range. I don't hear people claiming that
> the scimitar is overpowered.
I guess I can't find a mechanical reason to disagree. But it bugs me
nonetheless. A kukri shouldn't be doing greater degrees of slashing
damage than a battleaxe...
>
> --
> Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
>
> D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Jim Davies
>Jim Davies wrote:
>
>> On the grave of Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> is inscribed:
>>
>>
>>> I think you have found a flaw in the kukri rather than the stacking
>>>issue. The short sword does 1d6 damage and a critical range of 19-2-/x2,
>>>is a Piercing weapon. The battleaxe does 1d8 damage and a critical range
>>>of 20/x3, does Slashing damage. The kukri does 1d4 damage and has a
>>>critical range of 18-20/x2, does Slashing damage. My question is: Why?
>>
>>
>> The kukri is to the short sword as the scimitar is to the longsword: 1
>> die less but increased threat range. I don't hear people claiming that
>> the scimitar is overpowered.
>
> I guess I can't find a mechanical reason to disagree. But it bugs me
>nonetheless. A kukri shouldn't be doing greater degrees of slashing
>damage than a battleaxe...
Well, it isn't doing more (unless you're very very strong). The axe
will take your head off if it connects properly, but the kukri is more
likely to connect in a way that lets you employ your strength. A bit
of a bodged rule, really.
Ploughing through the maths:
Without Keen:
Axe and Scimitar get parity at a damage bonus of +18.5
Axe and Kukri get parity at a damage bonus of +41.5
With Keen:
Axe and Scimitar get parity at a damage bonus of +8.5
Axe and Kukri get parity at a damage bonus of +21.5
With Keen & ImpCrit:
Axe and Scimitar get parity at a damage bonus of +5.17
Axe and Kukri get parity at a damage bonus of +14.83
So your kukri is only going to do more damage than an equivalent axe
on average if both you and it are pretty extraordinary.
Tetsubo
I can't argue with the math. But the level of damage inflicted by an
axe in the real world and that of a kukri in the real world is not
similar. If the kukri design were more effective, it would be more
common. Yet the axe is in every culture and the kukri design far less
common.
>
> --
> Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
>
> D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
tussock
> In my campaigns I stack Keen and Improved Critical and allow a
> bludgeoning version of Keen. I don't mind fighters having nice things. :)
Yep. The rationale I read for stopping the stacking in 3.5 was
that getting crits so often at high level made them less special.
Well, getting crits all the time at 12-20/x2 was easily special enough
in itself, and the 18-20/x4 are wonderful things. Adding in the old
Weaponmaster for 10-20/x3 and 16-20/x5, that rocked.
Anyway, moderately useful on a high strength scythe build, or twin
picks, useless on bludgeoning weapons unless you make it better.
That's where it troubles me, that big Str works on scimitars and
kukri, and favours them over the basic clubs.
Not that I have a solution without radically changing what crits
do. <shrug>
--
tussock
And, of course, I have radically changed what crits do. Typical.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> In my campaigns I stack Keen and Improved Critical and allow a
>> bludgeoning version of Keen. I don't mind fighters having nice things. :)
>
> Yep. The rationale I read for stopping the stacking in 3.5 was
> that getting crits so often at high level made them less special.
> Well, getting crits all the time at 12-20/x2 was easily special enough
> in itself, and the 18-20/x4 are wonderful things. Adding in the old
> Weaponmaster for 10-20/x3 and 16-20/x5, that rocked.
Indeed. I allow things to stack when they're from different sources.
And "Divine" versus "Arcane" are different sources, too, so you can have
"Bull's Strength" from the party cleric and stack it with "Bull's
Strength" from the party sorcerer.
Why not let the fighters have their fun?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Tetsubo
Don't have Strength add a to hit bonus?
>
> --
> tussock
>
> And, of course, I have radically changed what crits do. Typical.
Keith Davies
> Jim Davies wrote:
>
>> Well, it isn't doing more (unless you're very very strong). The axe
>> will take your head off if it connects properly, but the kukri is more
>> likely to connect in a way that lets you employ your strength. A bit
>> of a bodged rule, really.
>>
>> Ploughing through the maths:
>>
>> Without Keen:
>> Axe and Scimitar get parity at a damage bonus of +18.5
>> Axe and Kukri get parity at a damage bonus of +41.5
>>
>> With Keen:
>> Axe and Scimitar get parity at a damage bonus of +8.5
>> Axe and Kukri get parity at a damage bonus of +21.5
>>
>> With Keen & ImpCrit:
>> Axe and Scimitar get parity at a damage bonus of +5.17
>> Axe and Kukri get parity at a damage bonus of +14.83
>>
>> So your kukri is only going to do more damage than an equivalent axe
>> on average if both you and it are pretty extraordinary.
>
> I can't argue with the math. But the level of damage inflicted by an
> axe in the real world and that of a kukri in the real world is not
> similar. If the kukri design were more effective, it would be more
> common. Yet the axe is in every culture and the kukri design far less
> common.
Perhaps it would help to consider that the level of damage isn't the
same, unless circumstances are rather unusual. At a base, the axe does
more damage than the kukri. On a critical, the axe (3d8 = 13.5 mean)
does rather more damage than the kukri (2d4 = 5 mean). Even on a
critical the kukri tends to do a little more damage on average (2d4
averages 5; d8 averages 4.5) but it's hardly noticeable.
So, on a lucky hit (which is about three times as likely with the kukri
than the axe) the kukri does just a bit more damage than the axe
normally does.
(I'm ignoring other bonuses such as high Str, enhancement bonus to
damage, and so on; the kukri gets them more often, but the axe's greater
multiplier should make up for that pretty well.)
tussock
> Don't have Strength add a to hit bonus?
That's not a bad idea in general. The 4e solution, were everyone
adds their best stat to attacks, does much the same thing, because
everyone has the same for their best stat, give or take a point.
However, it's a big fighter-nerf in 3e, so no can do there, you'd have
to compensate somehow with Strength, use reverse power-attack or
something at -1 damage giving +1 to hit, and more.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
Everstone does away with any Strength or Dexterity to hit bonuses. But
they also rewrite the AC system to be a DR and dodge system.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Or you could have it be the AVERAGE of the bonuses to whatever stats
(STR for "bashing through anything", DEX for "able to use quickness and
accuracy to get past defenses", INT for "Able to analyze attack and
defense and find weakness", even CHA for "Able to use personal dynamism
to intimidate and confuse opponent").
Then you could have separate feats allowing you to apply the entire
stat bonus to the attack, one feat per stat. Fighters could take ALL of
those feats if they wanted, but other character classes could only take
one (whatever was considered to be their primary class, and multiclassed
not-fighters would have to choose one and stick with it).
Keith Davies
Interesting idea, but could perhaps be simpler.
1. no ability score bonus on attack
2. feat (or something) for each ability score, letting you add it to
your attack
3. anyone can take as many of them as they like
4. +1 feat at first level to pay for this, if they want, or you get to
pick one at first level for free (bonus-but-constrained feat)
Fighters are really the only ones with enough feats to really crank this
up, and even then they're likely to have only one or two, assuming they
pump a prime score -- I'd expect to see Str and Dex for most, but Dex
and Int would be a good build too. Other classes can spend five of
their seven feat slots to get the other five ability score bonuses on
their attack, but why would they? It'd be too great a cost for what
they get, IMO. Unless, of course, they have a cool character idea about
it, in which case they probably should be able to.
Jim Davies
>1. no ability score bonus on attack
>2. feat (or something) for each ability score, letting you add it to
> your attack
>3. anyone can take as many of them as they like
>4. +1 feat at first level to pay for this, if they want, or you get to
> pick one at first level for free (bonus-but-constrained feat)
>
>Fighters are really the only ones with enough feats to really crank this
>up, and even then they're likely to have only one or two, assuming they
>pump a prime score -- I'd expect to see Str and Dex for most, but Dex
>and Int would be a good build too. Other classes can spend five of
>their seven feat slots to get the other five ability score bonuses on
>their attack, but why would they? It'd be too great a cost for what
>they get, IMO. Unless, of course, they have a cool character idea about
>it, in which case they probably should be able to.
This is going to stack rather fast. Even a standard build 25-pt dwarf
fighter with Str 15, Con 16, Dex 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8 can get +5
for 2 feats. A 30-point character will have +6 or +7. When the buffs
start pouring in, it's going to get astronomical. You're looking at +5
or +10 over RAW for 1 or 2 feats.
It does make feats like Weapon Focus and Point Blank Shot totally
obsolete.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>> 1. no ability score bonus on attack
>> 2. feat (or something) for each ability score, letting you add it to
>> your attack
>> 3. anyone can take as many of them as they like
>> 4. +1 feat at first level to pay for this, if they want, or you get to
>> pick one at first level for free (bonus-but-constrained feat)
>>
>> Fighters are really the only ones with enough feats to really crank this
>> up, and even then they're likely to have only one or two, assuming they
>> pump a prime score -- I'd expect to see Str and Dex for most, but Dex
>> and Int would be a good build too. Other classes can spend five of
>> their seven feat slots to get the other five ability score bonuses on
>> their attack, but why would they? It'd be too great a cost for what
>> they get, IMO. Unless, of course, they have a cool character idea about
>> it, in which case they probably should be able to.
>
> This is going to stack rather fast. Even a standard build 25-pt dwarf
> fighter with Str 15, Con 16, Dex 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8 can get +5
> for 2 feats. A 30-point character will have +6 or +7. When the buffs
> start pouring in, it's going to get astronomical. You're looking at +5
> or +10 over RAW for 1 or 2 feats.
Sounds like fun to me.
>
> It does make feats like Weapon Focus and Point Blank Shot totally
> obsolete.
For those who have lots of stats to buy, yes. One reason I was saying
the prerequisite should be fighter.
Or you could limit it to one such purchase.
(Me, I have no trouble with lots of bonuses, but the other challenge
you run into is how it changes the focus.)
David Lamb
> This is going to stack rather fast. Even a standard build 25-pt dwarf
> fighter with Str 15, Con 16, Dex 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8 can get +5
> for 2 feats. A 30-point character will have +6 or +7. When the buffs
> start pouring in, it's going to get astronomical. You're looking at +5
> or +10 over RAW for 1 or 2 feats.
>
> It does make feats like Weapon Focus and Point Blank Shot totally
> obsolete.
Not a good idea, IMHO. Maybe have a level requirement? One of these
feats per 2-3 levels? tie to BAB? High-level fighters should get good
stuff, but maybe this is *too* good at lower levels.