|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 12:34PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2002
|
Which is more valuable: Weapon Focus or Expanded Crit Range?
That depends upon the character build, the party build and the scale on which you're measuring value.
It seems pretty clear that the game works best when it is working as the designers intended. There is a recommended way to build encounters to challenge PCs with an appropriate level of challenge. If the PCs are more powerful than the designers intended them to be at a given level, the level of challenge provided by those suggested threats is too low and the game gets boring unless the DM adjusts the threat up. If the DM does, then things get out of balance and you end up with glass jaw parties - parties that fall fast when the overpowered monsters they are facing attack one aspect of the PC that isn't overpowered or when the PCs have a slightly unlucky streak (as all PCs eventually do).
To that end, although I enjoy the mental exercise of building PCs optimized for damage, for denying enemy attacks, etc..., I find that the most valuable options in D&D for PCs used at a game table are the efficient options that provide me the most fun.
To that end - both extended crit range and increased chances to hit are efficient, the extra thrill of the extra crits tends to be more fun than the extra thrill of hitting a bit more often (especially considering that things triggering on a crit tend to be more fun than things triggering on a normal hit). I would generally call that more valuable to a PC.
Regardless, I think most people in this forum pretty much always take both weapon focus and extended crit range feats, so the choice of which is more vauable is kind of moot.
D&D & Boardgames
If I have everything I need to run great games for many years without repeating stuff, why do I need to buy anything right now?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 12:43PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
It seems pretty clear that the game works best when it is working as the designers intended. There is a recommended way to build encounters to challenge PCs with an appropriate level of challenge. If the PCs are more powerful than the designers intended them to be at a given level, the level of challenge provided by those suggested threats is too low and the game gets boring unless the DM adjusts the threat up. If the DM does, then things get out of balance and you end up with glass jaw parties - parties that fall fast when the overpowered monsters they are facing attack one aspect of the PC that isn't overpowered or when the PCs have a slightly unlucky streak (as all PCs eventually do).
To that end, although I enjoy the mental exercise of building PCs optimized for damage, for denying enemy attacks, etc..., I find that the most valuable options in D&D for PCs used at a game table are the efficient options that provide me the most fun.
Your incessant need to insist/imply in the CO forum that CO is bad except as a thought exercise is tiring. You could have made your point without the rant that you seem to include in all your posts, and we still would have been aware of your feelings about optimization.
Maybe you should just put it in your sig so we can read it when we want to.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 1:25PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2007
|
I keep thinking I should add some of this to my monk guide, and then I remember that monks don't qualify for improved critical feats. Well, except if your DM allows ki focused weapons and you use your monk unarmed strike with your melee attacks, if you even use melee attacks.
Maybe if I talk to Richard Schwab we can get something nice like a halfling specific improved critical feat for slings as implements.
Well, on the plus side, it makes me warm inside that monks aren't losing out on a lot......
Sorry, I felt the need to vent.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 2:40PM
#54
|
|
|
It's funny how people's reaction to this is. I understand that we are taking in general about crit range and not specific classes or builds.
In general expanded crit is not worth it. When you get down to specifics then it can be a different story
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 3:04PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2006
|
It's funny how people's reaction to this is. I understand that we are taking in general about crit range and not specific classes or builds.
In general expanded crit is not worth it. When you get down to specifics then it can be a different story
Its not that its not worth it, its that in general weapon focus is better (again, specifics differ).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 7:13PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
It seems pretty clear that the game works best when it is working as the designers intended. There is a recommended way to build encounters to challenge PCs with an appropriate level of challenge. If the PCs are more powerful than the designers intended them to be at a given level, the level of challenge provided by those suggested threats is too low and the game gets boring unless the DM adjusts the threat up. If the DM does, then things get out of balance and you end up with glass jaw parties - parties that fall fast when the overpowered monsters they are facing attack one aspect of the PC that isn't overpowered or when the PCs have a slightly unlucky streak (as all PCs eventually do).
To that end, although I enjoy the mental exercise of building PCs optimized for damage, for denying enemy attacks, etc..., I find that the most valuable options in D&D for PCs used at a game table are the efficient options that provide me the most fun.
Your incessant need to insist/imply in the CO forum that CO is bad except as a thought exercise is tiring. You could have made your point without the rant that you seem to include in all your posts, and we still would have been aware of your feelings about optimization.
Maybe you should just put it in your sig so we can read it when we want to.
I agree with Alpha - this is really getting old. Some of us like piloting powerful characters and examining mechanics, OK? Get over it, and bring something productive to say next time.
As for expanded crit range...
Typically, if you pick up one or two things that trigger off a critical hit, it ends up adding more than any other individual contribution (especially on multiattackers or potential multiattackers). On builds that choose to not indulge in said support, the effect wanes, but it's usually worth the feat anyway. Obviously, given that I steward Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues, I don't see myself changing those ratings, and it's not a Gold feat for the other classes anyway (heck, it's not even rated that high for Rogues).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 10:14PM
#57
|
|
|
In general expanded crit is not worth it. When you get down to specifics then it can be a different story
It's not that it's not worth it, it's more like: if you are going to take crit-boosting stuff, you should go all the way with it. It's not worth it to dip into it a little bit, generally speaking.
I typically crunch lots of numbers for options on my builds before posting them, and I rarely find optimizing crits to be valuable except in specific circumstances (avengers, natch), but if I have room left over I'll pick up a war ring or improved crit or whatever, even though there's not a tremendous amount of benefit from them.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2011 - 10:53PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
It seems pretty clear that the game works best when it is working as the designers intended. There is a recommended way to build encounters to challenge PCs with an appropriate level of challenge. If the PCs are more powerful than the designers intended them to be at a given level, the level of challenge provided by those suggested threats is too low and the game gets boring unless the DM adjusts the threat up. If the DM does, then things get out of balance and you end up with glass jaw parties - parties that fall fast when the overpowered monsters they are facing attack one aspect of the PC that isn't overpowered or when the PCs have a slightly unlucky streak (as all PCs eventually do).
To that end, although I enjoy the mental exercise of building PCs optimized for damage, for denying enemy attacks, etc..., I find that the most valuable options in D&D for PCs used at a game table are the efficient options that provide me the most fun.
Your incessant need to insist/imply in the CO forum that CO is bad except as a thought exercise is tiring. You could have made your point without the rant that you seem to include in all your posts, and we still would have been aware of your feelings about optimization.
Maybe you should just put it in your sig so we can read it when we want to.
Amen, Alpha. Amen.
As for the expanded crit feats:
For characters that strive to deal as much damage as possible, I think they come next in priority after any static damage feats, overall. Which means for such characters it'll still be a top-3 or 4 priority. But if you are going to take expanded crit range, try to also take at least something to give your crits extra bite. Extra attacks are the best, and sizeable extra damage effects and status effects are also really good.
As for my character guides, only the STR-based variety of Paladin will even qualify from that class, and they like dealing damage and even have the combination of Punishing Radiance + Font of Radiance, so it'll probably still be sky blue for them. Executioners, still gold; their Epic Tier damage support is pretty thin right now, anyway, but besides that they can still build to get things like Two-Weapon Opening, plus doubling the chance of a crit on Assassin's Strike is always nice. Bards I might look at changing, as most of them really don't do a whole lot of damage or have nifty crit effects (Tieflings with Glasya's Charming Words would be a big exception here).
D&DN Paladin: Half-Fighter, half-Cleric, all useless. D&DN Ranger: Third-Fighter, third-Rogue, third-Druid, all useless. With one interesting concept that has its execution botched. My 4e Character Op work:Character guides
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2011 - 12:29AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2006
|
Swordmage comes to mind as a class where its not necessary to make room for the swordmage implement expanded crit feat. Its nice if you can, but I don't think its a big benefit for most builds there. Right now its light blue in that guide ... I'll shoot a note to herid.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2011 - 4:34AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
Is it necessary? No. Swordmages, even assault swordmages, have to be built very carefully to become striker-lites, and damage is not one of their major focuses. On the other hand, the comparison that mellored is making (between Weapon Focus and a crit on 19-20 feat) swings strongly to Swordmage Implement Expertise because Weapon Focus and its counterpart Implement Focus only help half of the swordmage's powers.
The reason why I rated it at light blue is because swordmages are more likely than many other classes to be using burst and blast attacks to target multiple enemies, and doing the 6d6 crit damage (and maxing the base damage) gives them a bit more "nova" damage than they can easily get any other way. (It's so small that calling it nova hurts a little, but it turns your high hit into a moderately-optimized striker's low hit). As it is, I'd still look at retraining for Total Aegis and picking up Rapid Aegis Reaction first, and possibly some other defense feats beforehand. Yeah, it's a little overrated, but I wrote it and I like feeling good about it. :P
|
|
|
