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

[Grog]

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!

The titan also gained far more powerful SLAs (including Quickened Chain Lightning), giving it a big offensive boost.

So far, the trend for 3.5e looks like this:

Monster defense: Going up

Monster offense: Going up

Player offense: Going up for some classes (mainly fighter types) and down for others (mainly wizards/sorcerors)

Player defense: Staying pretty much the same

Player healing ability: Going down (with the nerfing of Heal)

The end result looks to be a system that will result in even more player death than 3.0 did.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well there are a number of angles on this question and it is heavily dependent upon the character and weapons in question. However, since I did some calculations on the 3.5e Titan/DR thread in the main forum that included crits, I'll share my conclusions:

1. DR numbers are going down in 3.5 but the likelihood of encountering inpenetrable DR is going up to near certainty at high levels.

2. A lot of creatures with inpenetrable DR are also immune to crits. Constructs are immune to crits. Undead are immune to crits. Outsiders and Dragons are the other significant DR possessing high CR monsters (although I didn't see DR on the Red Dragon statblock in the revision spotlight). And some outsiders can wear fortification armor (the Titan for instance).

3. For low threat range, high multiplier weapons like greataxes and scythes, crits are still devastating.

4. One handed, high threat range, low multiplier weapons like scimitars and kukris don't get really impressive results. For instance, the dual shortsword fighter I statted out benefitted from crits--they were the only thing that enabled his off hand to do more than 1d6-2 damage against the Titan. However, he didn't gain enough benefit from crits to be effective against the Titan.

5. Adding in crits to the fighter v. Titan calculations didn't result in a dramatic shift in the fighters' favor. Even the greataxe fighter would need an average eight full attacks (or so) to kill the Titan--after crits were figured in.

So crits are significant in DR cases but they don't make an overwhelming difference. Where crits might make a big difference is in a more complex analysis that included cleave. I suspect that the fighter 6/Barbarian 2 wielding the keen falchion with improved crit will be more effective against a large group of trolls (or a small group of giants) than the greatsword fighter with a bigger enhancement bonus on the greatsword. However, I don't think that such inclusion would substantially change analysis of the high crit/high damage weapons that we've already performed.

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?

 

[Corinth]

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.

This is obviously not the case, or the changes wouldn't be made; WOTC gets far more feedback than what appears on message boards, and that feedback--as they explained--drives the changes.

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.

That would be punishing the player for doing what he's suppossed to do: make full use of the rules to make his character as powerful as the campaign allows, thus cementing his niche in the party and maximizing his chances of surviving the encounters that threaten his existence. This is folly. The way that WOTC's going about it is the correct one.

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.

His opinion is informed by the feedback of millions of players, both hardcore and casual, given over three years of actual gameplay and backed up by in-house analysis and playtesting. This makes his position the better one, and yours not worth heeding.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

So let me see. According to this logic, if a 3rd party makes a prestige class that gives the ability to coup de grace anyone a character is flanking and gives that class proficiency with Scythes, WotC would have to change the coup de grace mechanic and make Scythes do 1d2 points of damage.

Or if some third party published a spell that doubled a paladin's Lay on Hands ability and paladins all over the world used scrolls of this to anihilate ancient vampires, WotC should halve the paladin's Lay on Hands to make up for it.

Or if some third party published a feat that allowed greataxes to decapitate their opponents on a natural 20, WotC would be doing the responsible thing by eliminating the greataxe?

Let's face it. If only a non-core spell like Assassin's senses or Sacred Journey or a non-core class like the Green Ronin Assassin is ruining the game, it's encumbent on the DM to disallow the non-core material that's ruining his game. It's not encumbent upon WotC to ruin their mechanics just because some bonehead in another company makes a mistake. If WotC altered the core rules to eliminate every mechanic third party publishers had broken, they'd only have the commoner class in the PH and they'd be unable to gain feats or use magic items.

That would be punishing the player for doing what he's suppossed to do: make full use of the rules to make his character as powerful as the campaign allows, thus cementing his niche in the party and maximizing his chances of surviving the encounters that threaten his existence. This is folly. The way that WOTC's going about it is the correct one.

 

[Grog]

This is obviously not the case, or the changes wouldn't be made; WOTC gets far more feedback than what appears on message boards, and that feedback--as they explained--drives the changes.

And what about the changes that were explained as being Andy Collins' house rules? Those obviously weren't feedback-driven changes. To simply assume that all the changes are being driven by feedback is foolish, especially when we've heard otherwise already. Many of the 3.5 changes are arbitrary and ill-considered.

That would be punishing the player for doing what he's suppossed to do: make full use of the rules to make his character as powerful as the campaign allows, thus cementing his niche in the party and maximizing his chances of surviving the encounters that threaten his existence. This is folly. The way that WOTC's going about it is the correct one.

Elder Basilisk already did an excellent job rebutting this ridiculous argument, so I won't rehash it.

And you're wrong when you talk about what the player is supposed to do. The player is supposed to have fun - period. D&D is a game, and the goal of everyone involved is to have fun. Some players have fun playing interesting character concepts that aren't necessarily the most powerful types possible. Someone might want to play a bard with a low charisma, for example. Such a character wouldn't be very powerful, but the player might think that the concept was interesting and decide to try it out.

Similarly, some players have fun by trying to make their characters as powerful as they possibly can. And that's fine. But sometimes they go too far, and need to be reined in or they become disruptive to the game. And the proper way to rein them in is to make changes that target the rare abilities they were abusing, not the common abilities that a lot of players use.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Stacking threat ranges was not broken. If some PrC/spell/ability combinations were broken, than that was what needed to be fixed.

His opinion is informed by the feedback of millions of players, both hardcore and casual, given over three years of actual gameplay and backed up by in-house analysis and playtesting. This makes his position the better one, and yours not worth heeding.

So you apparentely believe Andy Collins is infallible. Good to know you think so highly of him.

Just out of curiousity, if Andy Collins instituted a rule that changed every damage spell in the game to 1d2 points per level and required wizards to make a Fortitude save or pass out every time they cast one, would you continue to believe that every single change he made was informed by feedback and backed up by through analysis and extensive playtesting?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

And what about the changes that were explained as being Andy Collins' house rules? Those obviously weren't feedback-driven changes. To simply assume that all the changes are being driven by feedback is foolish, especially when we've heard otherwise already. Many of the 3.5 changes are arbitrary and ill-considered.

So were many of the message board comments.

The titan also gained far more powerful SLAs (including Quickened Chain Lightning), giving it a big offensive boost.

The titan lost the ability to cast cleric spells, so he can no longer cast destruction and similar spells. Chain lightning can be defeated by a 3rd-level spell, which 21st-level characters tend to have a lot of.

I'd also like to point out that high CR creatures were generally weak, and a 21st-level party should be able to deal with chain lightning.

 

[Pax]

This is obviously not the case, or the changes wouldn't be made; WOTC gets far more feedback than what appears on message boards, and that feedback--as they explained--drives the changes.

Do you mean to say that the ENWorld community is NOT representative of the D&D community as a whole? That we ENWorlders are somehow significantly different form the "average gamer" ... ?

Under 90% finding it a problem here, means it is reasonable to extrapolate that the rest of D&D-land shares a comparable infrequency.

That would be punishing the player for doing what he's suppossed to do: make full use of the rules to make his character as powerful as the campaign allows,

Boy, if that isn't a munchkinish thing to say!

Buddy, I'm a powergamer; I admit it, without hesitation.

And even I know you're SUPPOSED to do whatever it takes to enjoy mutual fun! Mutual meaning, enjoy yourself without spoiling the fun for someone else sitting at the table with you.

thus cementing his niche in the party and maximizing his chances of surviving the encounters that threaten his existence. This is folly. The way that WOTC's going about it is the correct one.

No, what WOTC is doing is folly. Increased threat ranges aren't problematic; the weapns they are applied to tend to be sufficiently sub-par that the higher frequency of critical hits is irrelevant.

If, and it's a HUGE "if", critial hits were proving problematic, the better solution woudl not be to eliminate thrat-range-increase stacking, but to do one of two things:

ONE: change it so Keen and Improved Critical, etc, only adds ONE to the threat range. Same benefit, wether you wield a falchion or a greatsword or a short spear or whatever. Note that they would still stack; the benefits of havign multiple threat-range improvements would be significantly reduced in most situations, but, at least you wouldn't regret HAVING more than one!

TWO: change what does or doesn't get multiplied -- no more multiplied power attack, nor even the STR damage bonus.

Not that I think either is needed, but, there you have it: either one would have been received with less furor and dismay, I think.

His opinion is informed by the feedback of millions of players, both hardcore and casual, given over three years of actual gameplay and backed up by in-house analysis and playtesting. This makes his position the better one, and yours not worth heeding.

Bullsh*t. Feedback of millions of players? Shyeah, RIGHT. Feedback of the few loudmouths who were convinced THEIR way had to be the CORE way, instead of sticking to keeping their opinions in house rules country.

"Millions of Players" over three years. Let's see, three years is about 1,000 days -- no time off for weekends, holidays, being sick, whatever. Even if "millions" comes to only "2,000,000" ... and each person sent in only ONE message dealign with ONE item ... that'd be TWO THOUSAND FEEDBACK MESSAGES PER DAY.

Do you have any CONCEPTION of the cost to take in and process that kind of response level? To make it manageable, you'd need a staff of ~25, dedicated to doing nothing BUT. Which means, the staff doing that, wouldn't be WRITING jack!

Yet, we've had how many new producst in the past three years? With the R&D teams' names on them, in various combinations?

Shyeah. RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT, millions of players giving feedback.

Tell you what, buddy -- when you come back down from whatever it is you're on, and return to the real world ... check your numbers, and try some that mesh with sanity and reality, hmm? 'Cause you just shot yoru whole argument down but good, all by yoru onesies.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

Do you mean to say that the ENWorld community is NOT representative of the D&D community as a whole? That we ENWorlders are somehow significantly different form the "average gamer" ... ?

So the people nay-saying this new rule in this thread represent the majority of ENworld, and therefore the majority of gamers as a whole?

A lot of people are upset because this change is going into effect not for some game balancing reason, but in an effort to make critical hits more cinematic. They shout out that this is "wrong" and that anyone who'd make such changes was obviously dropped on their head when a child. Who are you to dictate that 3.0 or 3.5 is a game about crunching numbers. For me, this will make those critical hits fewer and far between, events making memorable moments in climactic battles. Fine, this isn't a change catering to those of you who want to see all the rows and columns line up. This is a change for me.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Whatever I may think about a given change, or about the rationale given for the change, I would be pretty choked to discover that Andy Collins wasn't using a change in his house games! If he's been working on this stuff for more than a year, of course the changes are going to find their way into his game.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I can accept attacks on the explanations and reasons given by Andy and others at Wizards, but I think it's pretty weak to suggest something is a problem because he uses it in his home games.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

Ditto

Whatever I may think about a given change, or about the rationale given for the change, I would be pretty choked to discover that Andy Collins wasn't using a change in his house games! If he's been working on this stuff for more than a year, of course the changes are going to find their way into his game.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I can accept attacks on the explanations and reasons given by Andy and others at Wizards, but I think it's pretty weak to suggest something is a problem because he uses it in his home games.

I hate it when someone says exactly what I was going to say, so that I am left with nothing to add but "ditto."