D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Threat ranges no longer stack!

[Elder-Basilisk]

Did any of the above figures include flaming burst weapons in their calculations? That would be interesting to see.

Here are Mike Sullivan's calculations from earlier--updated to reflect energy and energy burst enhancements.

Two characters, both with 28 Str, both Ftr level 16, one of them with a Flaming Shock Greatsword +4, the other with a Flaming Burst Keen Falchion +3.

Total AB's:

Greatsword Guy: +16 (BAB), +1 (WF), +4 (Greatsword), +9 (Str) = +30/+25/+20/+15

Falchion Guy: +16 (BAB), +1 (WF), +3 (Falchion), +9 (Str) = +29/+24/+19/+14

Damages:

Greatsword Guy: 2d6 + 13 (Str) + 4 (Greatsword) +2 (WS) +1d6 (fire) +1d6 (shock), 17-20/x2 crit

Falchion Guy: 2d4 + 13 (Str) + 3 (Falchion) + 2 (WS) +1d6 fire, 12-20/x2 crit (+1d10 fire on a crit)


Expected damage per round against an AC 25 (ie, low AC!) guy:

1. If he's not susceptible to crits.

Greatsword guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 7 + 13 + 4 + 2 +3.5 +3.5 = 33 * .95 = 31.35

Greatsword guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 5+, 10+, damage is 26 per hit = 33 * .95 + 33 * .95 + 33 * .8 + 33 * .55 = 107.25

Falchion guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 5 + 13 + 3 + 2 +3.5 = 26.5 * .95 = 25.175

Falchion guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 6+, 11+, damage is 23 per hit = 26.5 * .95 + 26.5 * .95 + 26.5 * .75 + 26.5 * .5 = 83.475

No surprises there, of course. That's just for reference.

2. If he IS susceptible to crits

Greatsword guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 7 + 13 + 4 + 2 = (26 * .95 * 1.2) +(3.5 * .95) + (3.5 * .95) = 36.29

Greatsword guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 5+, 10+, damage is 26 per hit = (26 * .95 + 26 * .95 + 26 * .8 + 26 * .55) * 1.2 + (7 * .95 + 7 * .95 + 7 * .8 + 7 * .55)= 124.15

Falchion guy, partial attack:

Hits on a 2+, damage is 5 + 13 + 3 + 2 = (23 * .95 * 1.45) + (3.5 *.95) + (5.5 *.45*.95) = 37.35875

Falchion guy, full attack:

Hits on a 2+, 2+, 6+, 11+, damage is 23 per hit = (23 * .95 + 23 * .95 + 23 * .75 + 23 * .5) * 1.45 (3.5 * .95 + 3.5 * .95 + 3.5 * .75 + 3.5 * .5) + (5.5 * .45 * .95 + 5.5 *.45 * .95 + 5.5 * .45 * .75 + 5.5 * .45 * .5)= 123.87375

Comments: Falchion guy was ahead of the game... by 7% on a partial attack and 3.6% on a full attack before figuring in energy enhancements as per Mike Sullivan's original analysis. With energy enhancements figured in, the falchion guy is still ahead on the partial attack--but only by 2.9%--and the greatsword guy is now actually 0.22% ahead of the falchion guy on the full attack.

Conclusion: Energy burst enhancements are less efficient than straight up energy enhancements--even on a high crit weapon like a falchion. Consequently, including them will not swing the average damage/round in the falchion wielder's favor. On the contrary, including energy enhancements in the calculation will swing it in favor of the non-critical dependent character.

Of course, it's important to remember that these are average calculations. The falchion guy will crit more often than the greatsword guy and thus will often deal more damage on individual attacks. A chart of his damage will have more spikes and peaks than the greatsword guys' and consequently, he may often seem to do more damage since he's "always" criticalling and dealing massive blows even though the average is less. This analysis also fails to account for cleave and great cleave which may well come into play more often for falchion guy (since they favor combatants who deal massive hits over those who deal a steady stream of above-average hits). Still, I think the analysis is sufficient to demonstrate that ignoring the burst enhancements doesn't invalidate Mike Sullivan's analysis.

 

[Grog]

This is a situation where numbers are irrelevant. What matters are the results generated from extreme stress tests, which is why it's wise to listen--in this circumstance--to the hardcore and not the casual gamers.

When the situations in the extreme stress tests will never come up in over 90% of games out there, I would say they're not very important. Certainly not important enough to make a change that affects a large number of players.

Like I said, the problem (if it exists) isn't with a fighter who has Improved Critical and a Keen weapon. It's with the character who has Improved Critical, a Keen weapon, a PrC or two that pumps up his crits, and non-core spells/items that also power up his crits. So the best solution to said problem would be to tone down the PrCs and the non-core spells and/or items. To change the core rules is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The opinion of the head of WOTC R&D carries far more weight than most when it comes to D&D in particular and d20 in general.

When he can't give a better justification for that opinion than "I didn't like it", it doesn't carry more weight, at least not with me.

 

[Grog]

Conclusion: Energy burst enhancements are less efficient than straight up energy enhancements--even on a high crit weapon like a falchion.

Yep, burst enchantments suck, plain and simple. Two regular energy enchantments are better than a burst enchantment 99% of the time. I think (though I'm not totally sure on this) that an energy enchantment and adding an extra + to the weapon would also be better than a burst enchantment.

 

[Fenes 2]

Yep, burst enchantments suck, plain and simple. Two regular energy enchantments are better than a burst enchantment 99% of the time. I think (though I'm not totally sure on this) that an energy enchantment and adding an extra + to the weapon would also be better than a burst enchantment.

Oh, but the appeal of a critical with a burst weapon makes up for lower damage overall. In my campaign, our barbarian uses a shocking burst longspear, and when he crits it is memorable (I especially liked the one-hit-one-dead-mindflayer he achieved in the last game I played in.)

I still can't fathom the logic behind the change.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Yep, burst enchantments suck, plain and simple. Two regular energy enchantments are better than a burst enchantment 99% of the time. I think (though I'm not totally sure on this) that an energy enchantment and adding an extra + to the weapon would also be better than a burst enchantment.

I wholly endorse E-B's math, and Grog's sentiment. Burst enhancements are Just Plain Bad. The only way they make sense if if you essentially have a virtual + that you literally can't put anywhere else (because your GM disallows or makes inconveniant multiple elemental effects on the same weapon, you've already got keen (or you're using 3.5, where keen is Yet More Useless), and your weapon is already at +5 enhancement).

If elemental effects were made "naturally" bursting (ie, you got the burst for the mere +1 cost), it might go some way towards shoring up the high-crit weapons in 3.5.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I have been thinking on this change. I think it is a good change for the most part. Though I have not had a character concept make it to high enough level to take full advantage of all the means of expanding the crit range such as a keen greatsword wielding fighter/weapon master with improved crit. I have seen a few of my players map out such characters, so I know they are quite possible.

I am thinking that I will let Improved Critical double the threat range while any other enhancements only increase the threat range by 1. I don't like making a magic power that emulates a feat perfectly marginalize the usefulness of a feat. The new rule concerning threat ranges would encourage player's to obtain keen weapons rather than spend a feat on Improved Critical. I don't like the way that works.

I think the change I am thinking of incorporating will make Improved Critical an attracive feat while still giving value to keen, which is much easier to obtain than a feat.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Shard O'Glase used a straw man. No 12th level Fighter will have only 16 str, and no Strength boosters.

edit: I was just thinking whether there might have been a synergy problem with the new Power Attack and the Falchion, especially at levels 15+?

Rav

My 15th level fighter has a 14 strength +gauntlets of ogre power for a total of 16.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It looks like 3.5 should be renamed "Andy's House Rules."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

First, none of the monster changes (except possibly the dragons' CR increases) we've seen so far have "toned down" their offense.

Did you look closely at the titan? It gained a small offensive boost (a few points of attack bonus) and about 16 points to AC!

 

[Salamander Napolean]

It seems like an unnecessary change, but we should remember there are a lot of rules changing at once and affecting each other.

What advantages would a high-crit type fighter have over a normal fighter against a monster w/10 or 15 points of DR that their weapons can't cut through? Wouldn't it be advantageous to do really high damage w/ea. hit? How's the math work out for that?